Search for: "Doe v Ascend Charter Schs."
Results 1 - 2
of 2
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2022, 4:02 am
An attorney-client relationship does not depend on the existence of a formal retainer agreement (see Hall v Hobbick, 192 AD3d at 778), and the plaintiff had no obligation to demonstrate evidentiary facts to support the allegations contained in the complaint (see Doe v Ascend Charter Schs., 181 AD3d 648, 650; Stuart Realty Co. v Rye Country Store, 296 AD2d 455, 456). [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 5:28 am
” “The complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of Singh submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice (see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Doe v Ascend Charter Schs., 181 AD3d 648, 649-650). [read post]
