Search for: "Heritage Partners LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP"
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2018, 4:25 am
” Dweck Law Firm, LLP v Mann, 283 AD2d 292, 293 (1st Dept 2001) (emphasis added); see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428, 428-29 (1st Dept 2015). [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:11 am
Since damages in a legal malpractice case are designed “to make the injured client whole” (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]), having failed to plead actual damages, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim (see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904… [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:11 am
Since damages in a legal malpractice case are designed “to make the injured client whole” (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]), having failed to plead actual damages, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim (see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904… [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 3:55 am
See Heritage Partners, LLC v. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 3:23 am
The damages incurred by loss of a potential buyout are completely speculative (see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428 [2015] [dismissing legal malpractice claim where damages were based on multiple layers of speculation]; see also Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 388 [1992] [rejecting a claim for damages which are “too speculative and incapable of being proven with… [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:21 am
See Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428, 429 (1st Dept 2015) (affirming dismissal of malpractice claim based on “allegations ‘couched in terms of gross speculations on future events”‘), quoting Sherwood Group, Inc. v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman, 191 AD2d 292, 294 (1st Dept 1993 ); Leff v Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 78… [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:10 am
(See Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904 [2016] [the “gross speculation of future events” in the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to satisfy “but for” causation element required to state malpractice claim]). [read post]
