Search for: "Bird v. Stein"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2009, 5:54 am
In Stein v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:09 am
For the uninitiated, a snipe hunt is a practical joke played on inexperienced campers, who are sent to hunt an imaginary bird or animal (the snipe). [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am
Here, in Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C. 2018 NY Slip Op 05743 Decided on August 15, 2018 the Appellate Division, Second Department reminds us that “deceit” is the operative word and “chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency” is mere surplusage. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 3:47 am
Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178; see generally CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d 307, 315; ), no such cause of action has been pleaded in this case (see DeMartino v Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, 189 AD3d 774, 775). [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 11:20 pm
" Hygienic Specialties Co. v. [read post]
5 May 2017, 12:16 am
Judge Walker writes in the first China Cases InsightTM, titled In Qihu v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 3:15 am
The deceit under Judiciary Law § 487 and fraud claims were insufficiently pleaded because they do not identify any misrepresentation made by defendants (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]; Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]; CPLR 3016 [b]). [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 3:33 am
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, finding that these allegations, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d at 1225-1226; Seldon v Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 AD3d 490, 491 [2014]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows &… [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 3:51 am
With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]; see also Looff v Lawton, 97 NY 478, 482 [1884]). [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 4:43 am
Stein Law Firm, P.C. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 4:57 am
“A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive (see Judiciary Law § 487), whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct” (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]; see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2018], affd 35 NY3d 173 [2020]). [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 4:29 am
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637, affd 35 NY3d 173; see Palmieri v Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP, 200 AD3d at 785). [read post]
8 May 2023, 3:50 am
Further, except where there is deceit directed against a court, Judiciary Law § 487 “applies only to wrongful conduct by an attorney in an action that is actually pending” (Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1012-1013; see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178; Meimeteas v Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, 105 AD3d 643, 643). [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:12 am
” Judiciary Law § 487 does not require a showing of detrimental reliance (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]). [read post]
21 Feb 2006, 8:03 am
' Ron Friedmann (Prism Legal Consulting), David Hambourger (Winston & Strawn), and Eugene Stein (White & Case) are presenting on the topic. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 4:27 am
With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178; see also Looff v Lawton, 97 NY 478, 482). [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 6:06 am
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2018], affd 35 NY3d 173 [2020]). [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 3:09 am
“A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive (see Judiciary Law § 487), whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct” (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]; see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2018], affd 35 NY3d 173 [2020]). [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 3:22 am
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2018], affd 35 NY3d 173 [2020]; see CPLR 3016 [b]; Palmieri v Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP, 200 AD3d 785, 787 [2021]). [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 4:44 am
Recognizing that “[o]ur legal system depends on the integrity of attorneys who fulfill the role of officers of the court, furthering its truth-seeking function,” the statute creates a cause of action for attorney deceit that is distinct from common law fraud or legal malpractice (Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]). [read post]