Search for: "Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2020, 10:59 am
The breach of fiduciary duty claim was correctly dismissed as redundant of the legal malpractice claim (see Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 11:27 pm
Thus, separate counsel was an intervening and superseding cause of any damages (see Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 4:42 am
Thus, separate counsel was an intervening and superseding cause of any damages (see Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 3:59 am
” “Even were it not untimely, the malpractice claim should also be dismissed because “the proximate cause of any damages sustained by plaintiff was not the alleged malpractice of defendant[], but rather the intervening and superseding failure of plaintiff’s successor attorney” (Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
23 May 2019, 4:39 am
This is not an issue involving subject matter within the ken of an ordinary person and cannot be adequately judged based on the ordinary experience of the fact finder without expert testimony (cf Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
