Search for: "Daniele v Puntillo"
Results 1 - 2
of 2
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2012, 2:24 am
Although it would have been better practice for plaintiff to have put proof of the filing in evidence on his direct case, his failure to do so does not change the fact that he substantially complied with the rule.Case: Daniele v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 10:46 am
First Department Holds Where 'Substantial Compliance' with Matrimonial Rules, Attorney Allowed to Recover Fees Owed for Services Rendered, but Not Yet Paid For and Block Billing Is Not Improper In Daniele v Puntillo, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 3079201 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), Plaintiff was retained by defendant in March 2004, replacing defendant's prior counsel in her divorce proceeding. [read post]
