Search for: "Finkelstein v Finkelstein"
Results 1 - 20
of 130
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2024, 4:12 am
Where a client has challenged and lost on the issue of whether counsel is entitled to a fee, that determination collaterally estops a subsequent claim for legal malpractice (Koppelman v Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein & Robinson, 246 AD2d 365, 366 [1st Dept 1998]). [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 5:55 am
Finkelstein (@COFinkelstein) and General (ret.) [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 8:24 am
Finkelstein (@COFinkelstein) and General (ret.) [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 5:30 am
Here, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the acts that they allegedly failed to perform were beyond the scope of the engagement letter, which was prepared by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d at 435; DeNatale v Santangelo, 65 AD3d 1006, 1007; Turner v Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, LLP, 61 AD3d 849, 850). [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 5:00 am
In the case of Rosenwald v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm
, Best v. [read post]
6 May 2023, 2:49 pm
” There seems to be only one relevant precedent: Televest v. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 3:03 am
In this regard, cases hold that “[a]n attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause … ” (Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 699 [2d Dept 2011 ]). [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 6:27 am
Smith v. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am
” Because review of NAC’s liability insurance policies to determine their potential applicability to the judgment in the underlying action fell outside the scope of HSE’s engagement, the court properly granted HSE’s motion with respect to the professional negligence/legal malpractice cause of action against HSE insofar as asserted by NAC (see Turner v Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, LLP, 61 AD3d 849, 850 [2d Dept 2009]). [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 5:05 pm
In a seminal discrimination case, Casteneda v. [read post]
8 May 2022, 8:57 am
In 2018, a case was brought in front of the First Department Appellate Division in New York Finkelstein v Finkelstein, 162 A.D.3d 401, 79 N.Y.S.3d 17, 2018 N.Y. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 3:28 am
” Because review of NAC’s liability insurance policies to determine their potential applicability to the judgment in the underlying action fell outside the scope of HSE’s engagement, the court properly granted HSE’s motion with respect to the professional negligence/legal malpractice cause of action against HSE insofar as asserted by NAC (see Turner v Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, LLP, 61 AD3d 849, 850 [2d Dept 2009]). [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 6:53 pm
In a seminal 1977 discrimination case, Casteneda v. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 3:19 am
Accordingly, the retainer agreement utterly refutes the plaintiffs’ contention with respect to the scope of the CMM defendants’ representation in that regard (see CPLR 3211[a][1]; Turner v Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, LLP, 61 AD3d 849, 850), and the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the fourth and fifth causes of action. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm
”) Schwab v. [read post]
3 Oct 2021, 10:20 am
Finkelstein and Richard W. [read post]
3 Aug 2021, 5:00 pm
Co. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 3:11 am
[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Flomenhaft v Finkelstein (127 AD3d 634, 637 [1st Dept 2015] [test of pertinence is “extremely liberal”] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
9 May 2020, 1:30 pm
Check out Claire Finkelstein and Richard Painter's piece in the NYT, Trump's Bid to Stand Above the Law--a primer on the oral arguments next week in Trump v. [read post]
