Search for: "Booth v Kriegel"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2006, 4:36 am
Kriegel. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 4:07 am
McLaren, P.C. v Massand Eng’g, L.S., P.C., 51 AD3d 878, 878; Giarratano v Silver, 46 AD3d 1053, 1055; Booth v Kriegel, 36 AD3d 312, 314; Mitschele v Schultz, 36 AD3d 249, 253). [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 4:33 am
The statute of limitations is tolled under the continuous representation doctrine only for “so long as the defendant continues to advise the client in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship” (Booth v Kriegel, 36 AD3d at 314). [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 5:00 am
Corp., 172 AD3d 583, 584 [1st Dept 2019]), whether the statute of limitations was tolled because Migden was in a fiduciary relationship with the firm (see Robinson v Day, 103 AD3d 584, 586 [1st Dept 2013]), and whether it was tolled under the continuous representation doctrine (see Booth v Kriegel, 36 AD3d 312, 314 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 7:46 am
(See Booth, 36 AD3d at 314.) [read post]
