Search for: "McCoy v. Feinman"
Results 61 - 80
of 90
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The Court pointed out that in True v. [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]
29 Nov 2011, 2:49 am
McCoy v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
Contrary to the Meighan defendants' contention, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not sustain "actionable injury" until this Court awarded the buyers specific performance in the underlying action, the plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action against them was not time-barred (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; see Kerbein v Hutchison, 30 AD3d 730, 732). [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 1:17 am
McCoy v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:24 pm
McCoy v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 2:29 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007), quoting McCoy v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:52 am
That date was more than three years before the commencement of this action in June 2009 (see CPLR 214[6]; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; Tsafatinos v Lee David Auerbach, P.C., 80 AD3d 749). [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 1:58 am
As to legal malpractice, “A legal malpractice claim accrues ‘when all the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred and an injured party can obtain relief in court”’ (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002] Here is the argument to be made when the statute might reasonably be argued: Sure, a mistake was made, but no claim could be made until the "but for" part of the case came into existence, and that did not come… [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 1:45 am
To sustain a cause of action alleging legal malpractice, a plaintiff must 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 professional duty caused the plaintiff's actual damages" (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302 [internal [*2]quotation marks omitted]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs,… [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am
Plaintiffs' claim of legal malpractice is subject to a three-year statute of limitations which accrued when the actionable injury occurred — that is, at the time of the malpractice, not the time of its discovery (see CPLR 214 [6]; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 3:38 am
" McCoy v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 2:51 am
Contrary to the Meighan defendants' contention, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not sustain "actionable injury" until this Court awarded the buyers specific performance in the underlying action, the plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action against them was not time-barred (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; see Kerbein v Hutchison, 30 AD3d 730, 732). [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
Contrary to the Meighan defendants' contention, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not sustain "actionable injury" until this Court awarded the buyers specific performance in the underlying action, the plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action against them was not time-barred (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; see Kerbein v Hutchison, 30 AD3d 730, 732). [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:25 am
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, they failed to establish that the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 306; cf. [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]
4 May 2010, 3:59 am
" 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]
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]
