Search for: "McCoy v. Feinman"
Results 61 - 80
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2022, 2:06 am
” “”In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary :reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages'” (Rudolf Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438,442 [2007], quoting McCoy v… [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 3:23 am
Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting admissible evidence establishing that the plaintiff could not prove that, in advising her to waive her right to request an award of her prior counsels' fees, they "failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession" (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301). [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 2:07 am
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 N.Y.3d 1, 8, 872 N.E.2d 842, 840 N.Y.S.2d 730 (2007) (quotation omitted); accord McCoy v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am
A legal malpractice claim accrues when relief can be obtained in court (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]) and from the time the actual injury stemming from the malpractice occurs, not when it is discovered (Id.). [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 4:25 am
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 N.Y.3d 1, 8, 872 N.E.2d 842, 840 N.Y.S.2d 730 (2007) (quotation omitted); accord McCoy v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 2:49 am
McCoy v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 3:38 am
" McCoy v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 2:40 am
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302; Gioeli v Vlachos, 89 AD3d 984; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 176). [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:40 am
. regardless of when the operative facts are discovered by the plaintiff” (Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164 [citations omitted]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; Quinn v McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 AD3d at 1086). [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
"Assuming that the legal malpractice causes of action accrued more than three years before this action was commenced (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 543; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872, 872; Alicanti v Bianco, 2 AD3d 373, 374), nevertheless, the complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiff was "left with the reasonable impression that [Levinson] was, in fact, actively… [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 2:56 am
To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney's breach of this duty caused the plaintiff to suffer actual and ascertainable damages (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 350; Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v… [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am
“Accrual is measured from the commission of the alleged malpractice, when all facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred and the aggrieved party can obtain relief in court . . . regardless of when the operative facts are discovered by the plaintiff” (Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164 [internal citations omitted]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; Quinn v McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 AD3d at 1086).… [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 3:13 am
In a legal malpractice action, the claimant must show that an attorney "failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession" and that "the attorney s breach of this professional duty caused the (claimant' s) actual damages (McCoy Feinman 99 NY2d 295, 301-02 (2002)). [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:40 am
More specifically, the continuous representation doctrine “applies only where there is ‘a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim’ ” (Rodeo Family Enters., LLC v Matte, 99 AD3d at 784, quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]). [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 2:28 am
The doctrine tolls the limitations period "where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim" (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306), and " where the continuing representation pertains specifically to [*2][that] matter' " (International Electron Devices [USA] LLC v Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C., 71 AD3d 1512, 1513, quoting Shumsky v… [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 3:30 am
In order to recover damages in a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish "that the attorney 'failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession' and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Rudolf v Shayne, [*3]Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v… [read post]
13 May 2019, 4:12 am
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages ***” ( Island Properties & Equities, LLC v Cox, 93 AD3d 639, 640 [2d Dept 2012]; McCoy v Feinman, 99… [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 5:29 am
The complaint alleges that Singer and his firm breached their duty towards their client David by failing to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by attorneys, causing plaintiff to lose his case and/or to incur damages (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302 [2002]). [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 4:15 am
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that the continuous representation doctrine applies to· Todtman Nachamie (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]). [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 3:40 am
See McCoy v. [read post]
