Search for: "Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2008, 2:05 am
The defendants also demonstrated that the release applied to them, as they represented the releasee, and the plaintiff discharged the releasee and its "agents" from liability (see Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, 7 AD3d 385, 387; Argyle Capital Mgt. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 2:46 am
“Th[e] failure to establish proximate cause mandates dismissal of a legal malpractice action, regardless of an attorney’s negligence” (Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, 34 AD3d 297, 297 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 3:12 am
“Th[e] failure to establish proximate cause mandates dismissal of a legal malpractice action, regardless of an attorney’s negligence” (Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, 34 AD3d 297, 297 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:12 am
Contrary to the holding in Blum v Perlstein (47 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2008]) which cited to this Court’s decisions in Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding (7 AD3d 385 [1st Dept 2004]) and Argyle Capital Mgt. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
For example, in a case involving similar circumstances called Berkowitz v. [read post]
