Search for: "McCoy v. Feinman"
Results 81 - 91
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2021, 3:15 am
“This doctrine applies where there is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties and the attorney’s continuing representation pertains to the specific matter in which the attorney committed the [*3]alleged malpractice, not merely the continuity of a general professional relationship” (Deep v Boies, 53 AD3d 948, 950 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at… [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 6:08 am
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must allege 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 plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d… [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 4:06 am
What is important is when the malpractice was committed, not when the client discovered it” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301, 755 NYS2d 693 [2002]). [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 3:07 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 v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, quoting McCoy v… [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 3:14 am
In a legal malpractice action, "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 [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301… [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 1:17 am
McCoy v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 12:07 pm
Krantz, 175 A.D.2d 865 [2d Dept 1991], accord Sergeon v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 12:07 pm
Krantz, 175 A.D.2d 865 [2d Dept 1991], accord Sergeon v. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 3:33 am
The appeals court, quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 [2002], listed seven potential legal grounds to vacate a stipulation: fraud; collusion; mistake; duress; unconscionability; public policy; and ambiguity The Court ruled: Here, petitioner contends that the stipulated order should be vacated on grounds of fraud, unilateral mistake and unconscionability. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The Court pointed out that in True v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:06 pm
The Court pointed out that in True v. [read post]
