Search for: "Boesky v Levine"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2018, 4:50 am
See Landau v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:10 am
How to parse one from the other is discussed in Boesky v Levine 2021 NY Slip Op 02059 [193 AD3d 403] April 1, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 3:14 am
Boesky v Levine 2021 NY Slip Op 02059 Decided on April 01, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department is the story of an attorneys travels through a number of firms and how the statute of limitations and continuous representation work to track him. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 5:07 am
These factual contentions concerning whether defendant continued to represent plaintiff during the relevant time period so as to toll the limitations period give rise to factual issues that cannot be resolved in this pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Boesky v Levine, 193 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2021]; Johnson v Law Off. of Kenneth B. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 4:52 am
“Plaintiff’s contention that the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations has merit given that the attorneys who represented plaintiff in the divorce proceeding when the alleged malpractice occurred, continued to represent plaintiff in the same proceeding, “albeit while at different law firms” (Boesky v Levine, 193 AD3d 403, 405 [1st Dept 2021]). [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 4:44 am
These factual contentions concerning whether defendant continued to represent plaintiff during the relevant time period so as to toll the limitations period give rise to factual issues that cannot be resolved in this pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Boesky v Levine, 193 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2021]; Johnson v Law Off. of Kenneth B. [read post]
