Search for: "Doscher v Doscher"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2024, 4:54 am
Registration Sys., Inc. v McVicar, 203 AD3d 919, 920 [2d Dept 2022]; Platt v Berkowitz, 203 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2022]; Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 523-524 [1st Dept 2017]; Neroni v Follender, 137 AD3d 1336, 1337 [3d Dept 2016]). [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 2:45 am
LP v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 6:08 am
Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to raise her Judiciary Law § 487 claim in her motion for sanctions in that prior action, which was denied (Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v Platt, Sup Ct, NY County, March 28, 2018, Schecter, J., index No. 155985/14; see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 523-24 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 3:45 am
“The defendants’ counterclaim alleging legal malpractice relates to the plaintiff’s performance under the same retainer agreement pursuant to which the plaintiff would recover and therefore this counterclaim falls within the permissive ambit of CPLR 203[d]” (see Balanoff v Doscher, supra at 996]). [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:52 am
The plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Dougherty intended to deceive through his actions in the prior hybrid action/proceeding (see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912 [2016]; Seldon v Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 AD3d 490, 491 [2014]; see also Doscher v Meyer, 177 AD3d 697, 699 [2019]). [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 3:11 am
While counsel’s communications and statements surrounding the withdrawal of the action filed in New York, which we assume to be true on a CPLR 3211 (a)(7) motion, and defendants’ subsequent reliance on said withdrawal in a California action, are troubling, the complaint fails to allege damages proximately caused by the alleged deceit (see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 3:02 am
” “As the Supreme Court noted, civil conspiracy is not recognized as a civil cause of action in New York (see Notaro v Performance Team, 136 AD3d 997, 999), nor does a violation of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, without more, support either an independent cause of action or a cause of action alleging legal malpractice, even where the alleged violation is a conflict of interest (see Doscher v Meyer, 177 AD3d 697, 699; DeStaso v… [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 2:59 am
” Advice from a federal judge to the lawyers in a Florida case [Eugene Volokh; Doscher v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
However, in Doscher v Meyer 2019 NY Slip Op 08171 Decided on November 13, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department it was totally inapplicable. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:22 am
Thus, a plaintiff must plead the attorney’s intentional deceit damages caused by the deceit (see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 4:25 am
“In its February 16, 2017 order, the motion court correctly dismissed the first cause of action in the original verified complaint to the extent that it alleged a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, because plaintiff failed to plead the essential elements of a cause of action under the statute, i.e., intentional deceit and damages proximately caused by the deceit (see Judiciary Law § 487; Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d… [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 2:49 am
Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery recently had such a case before him in Longoria v Somers, C.A. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 3:19 pm
Smith's decision last week in Doscher v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 3:14 am
” Here, under the particular circumstances of this case, and even accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of HWR’s motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 524; Costalas v… [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 4:40 am
Jean v. [read post]
30 May 2018, 4:14 am
Shawe’s allegations that the attorney defendants deceptively backdated a retainer agreement primarily relates to privilege assertions in the Delaware action, and not in New York, and, as such, is not actionable under § 487 (see Doscher v Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 1:32 pm
Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Salman v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 5:00 am
Circuits and urge the Supreme Court to the Second Circuit’s holding in Doscher v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 6:36 am
The Second Circuit distinguished Doscher’s case from NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 11:30 am
The underlying facts to Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. [read post]
