Search for: "Burrows v State" Results 41 - 60 of 201
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2013, 1:54 pm by Venkat
” False Advertising: The court says that she adequately states a claim under California’s false advertising statute as well, largely based on the allegations that support the UCL claim. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“The fact that the plaintiff subsequently was unhappy with the settlement [she] obtained . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758; Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554). [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 4:33 am by CMS
  In an early question from the bench, Lord Burrows queried what was meant by the “lowest common denominator”. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 6:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912 [2016]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]). [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 3:43 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiffs’ “hindsight criticism of counsels’ reasonable course of action . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d at 758 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 9:48 am by Toam Rubinstein and Stacy K. Marcus
” Compendium (Third) § 101.1(A); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 9:48 am by Toam Rubinstein and Stacy K. Marcus
” Compendium (Third) § 101.1(A); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615; Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP, 126 AD3d 427; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]