Search for: "Matter of McCoy v McCoy"
Results 61 - 80
of 191
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
(See McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002).) [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 2:32 pm
Habeas statute of limitations was not extended by McCoy v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 6:39 am
McCoy SUFFOLK COUNTYCivil Practice Court Rejects Bid for Subpoena as Labor Union Leader Privilege Ruled Inapplicable Matter of Suffolk County Ethics Commission v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 3:53 am
Servs., LLC v Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, 188 AD3d 530, 531 [1st Dept 2020], quoting McCoy, 99 NY2d at 301, citing King Tower Realty Corp. v G & G Funding Corp., 163 AD3d 541 [2d Dept 2018]). [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:55 am
United States (Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act – Trust Funds) McCoy v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
McCoy v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 4:18 am
McCoy a new trial in which his lawyer is his advocate, not an ally of the prosecution. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 3:43 am
An attorney may be liable for ignorance of the rules of practice, for failure to comply with conditions precedent to suit, for neglect to prosecute or defend an action, or for failure to conduct adequate legalresearch (see, Conklin v Owen, 72 AD3d 1006; McCoy v Tepper, 26 1 AD2d 592; Gardner v Jacon,148 AD2d 794, 796; Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645,646). [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 12:00 am
This could create yet another conflict with McCoy v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 2:07 am
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 N.Y.3d 1, 8, 872 N.E.2d 842, 840 N.Y.S.2d 730 (2007) (quotation omitted); accord McCoy v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 9:10 pm
We've just been informed of a California appellate decision, Conte v. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 9:10 am
This issue first came to the country’s attention when in a non-Maryland case McCoy v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:29 am
This is true even where the plaintiff is unaware of any malpractice, damages, or injury (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 300- 301). [read post]
1 Feb 2020, 7:45 am
Case citation: Jeppson v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 6:03 am
Facebook posts can be considered matters of public concern; however, the Court does not believe Plaintiffs Carter and McCoy have alleged sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
Plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant does not alter this analysis (see Matter of Kent v Kent, 29 AD3d 123, 130-31 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
Plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant does not alter this analysis (see Matter of Kent v Kent, 29 AD3d 123, 130-31 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am
In [*2]response, the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing either that she commenced the action within the applicable three-year limitations period, or that the continuous representation toll applied in this case, since all of the documentary evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the legal representation had ended more than three years before this action was commenced, and there was no mutual understanding of a need for ongoing legal representation in the underlying… [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 1:45 am
Guayara v Harry I. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
We have defined the term “exclusively” as used in this context “to connote ‘principal’ or ‘primary,’ such that purposes and uses merely ‘auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose’ and use will not defeat the exemption’” (Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg, 79 NY2d 244, 249 [1992], quoting Matter of Association of Bar of City of N.Y. v Lewisohn, 34 NY2d… [read post]
