Search for: "Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum"
Results 1 - 10
of 10
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2009, 4:33 am
Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum ; 2009 NY Slip Op 04387 [63 AD3d 687] ; June 2, 2009 ; Appellate Division, Second Department is a somewhat famous case in Legal Malpractice. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 4:12 am
Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534). [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:05 am
Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534). [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 3:47 am
Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534). [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 3:31 am
Here, Etkin established, prima facie, that the legal services at issue in the instant action and in the fee dispute action were the same and, thus, that Liberty Associates' settlement of the fee dispute action with the Ravin Firm, of which Etkin was a member, precludes Liberty Associates from maintaining the instant action against Etkin under the doctrine of res judicata (see Izko Sportswear Co, Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537). [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 3:01 am
Here, Etkin established, prima facie, that the legal services at issue in the instant action and in the fee dispute action were the same and, thus, that Liberty Associates' settlement of the fee dispute action with the Ravin Firm, of which Etkin was a member, precludes Liberty Associates from maintaining the instant action against Etkin under the doctrine of res judicata (see Izko Sportswear Co, Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537). [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 4:15 am
Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537; Knecht v Tusa, 15 AD3d 626, 627). [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 4:17 am
" "A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 may be established either by the defendant's alleged deceit or by an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant' " (Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537; see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8; Schindler v Issler & Schrage, 262 AD2d 226, lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791, rearg denied 94 NY2d 859). [read post]
24 Sep 2021, 5:06 am
A violation of the statute may be established by evidence of the defendant’s alleged deceit (see Scarborough v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 63 AD3d 1531, 1533 [4th Dept 2009]; Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537 [2d Dept 2006]), but “alleged deceit that is not directed at a court must occur in the course of ‘a pending judicial proceeding’ ” (Hansen v Caffry, 280 AD2d… [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 3:15 am
Inc, v Flaum. 25 AD3d 534 (2d Dept 2006);Amalfitano v, Rosenberg, 533 F3d 117 (2d Cir 2008). [read post]
