Search for: "Darby & Darby v. VSI INTL."
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2010, 3:41 am
Here, in Sklover & Donath, LLC v Eber-Schmid ; 2010 NY Slip Op 02002 Decided on March 16, 2010 ; Appellate Division, First Department the justices borrow from an unidentified law review article to state that hindsight is "an unreliable test for determining the past existence of legal malpractice" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000] [law review source omitted]). [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:51 am
A client's "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests [a]re insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]) The part of defendants' malpractice counterclaim that dealt with the action against Edward Roski III was properly dismissed. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 4:30 am
A client's "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests [a]re insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]) The part of defendants' malpractice counterclaim that dealt with the action against Edward Roski III was properly dismissed. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 4:23 am
The court dismissed the legal malpractice complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), based on documentary evidence from which it concluded that the state of the law at the time the advice was given was unsettled and defendants therefore had not " failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession'" at that time (quoting Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308,… [read post]
30 May 2008, 4:15 am
Moreover, Lefkowitz's failure to anticipate the 2005 appellate ruling in Ragucci, upon which plaintiffs rely (id.), would not have constituted [*2]a departure from the professional standard of care (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., Inc., 95 NY2d 308, 314 [2000]). [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
“”In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman,… [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 4:34 am
From Glenwayne: “In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, quoting McCoy v… [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 312 [2000]). [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 6:21 am
Under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant's general claims of verbal refusals to pay did not constitute a specific objection sufficient to defeat plaintiff's cause of action for an account stated (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; J.B.H., Inc. v Godinez, 34 AD3d at 875-876; PPG Indus. v A.G.P. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 3:22 am
Attorneys are free to act in a manner that is "reasonable and consistent with the law as it existed at the time of representation," without exposing themselves to liability for malpractice (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315; see Noone v Stieglitz, 59 AD3d 505, 507; Iocovello v Weingrad & Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208, 208). [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:52 am
” With regard to plaintiff’s account stated claim, defendant asserted, without corroboration, that she had objected to the invoices at various points, but those “self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated” (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; accord Schlenker v Cascino, 124 AD3d at 1153). [read post]
