Search for: "Matter of McCoy v McCoy"
Results 121 - 140
of 193
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
Cir. 1959) and Home Box Office v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 11:00 pm
Shannon, 150 Wis. 2d 434, 450-51 (1989) and citing McCoy v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 11:00 pm
Shannon, 150 Wis. 2d 434, 450-51 (1989) and citing McCoy 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 Feinman,… [read post]
22 May 2012, 3:27 am
Gilbert 8 NY3d 933 934 (2007); McCoy v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 4:49 am
McCoy, 484 U.S. 3 (1987). [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 9:30 am
In Bland v. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 9:56 am
(Eugene Volokh) So holds Bland v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 3:14 am
Under such circumstances, plaintiff has failed to establish as a matter of law that a potential claim existed under Insurance Law § 3420 against Interstate Insurance Group. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:06 pm
The Court pointed out that in True v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The Court pointed out that in True v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 2:28 pm
McCoy, 131 S. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 12:21 pm
The recent case of Ajamian 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… [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 1:20 pm
In Dunn v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
Here, in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Meighan defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issues of fact with respect to their liability for legal malpractice (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Northrop v Thorsen, 46 AD3d 780, 784; Jampolskaya v Victor Gomelsky, P.C., 36 AD3d 761, 762). [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 10:23 am
Sport of Kings suits (28%) (big co v. big co) [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
