Search for: "Matter of McCoy v McCoy"
Results 81 - 100
of 191
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 2:29 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007), quoting McCoy v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:55 am
A plaintiff seeking to recover damages for legal malpractice must prove that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302; Biberaj v Acocella, 120 AD3d 1285, 1286). [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 4:11 am
A plaintiff seeking to recover damages for legal malpractice must prove that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302 [2002]; Biberaj v Acocella, 120 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2014]). [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 4:35 am
Here, the respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were pursuing a reasonable trial strategy. [read post]
26 May 2020, 4:30 am
In order to be entitled to summary judgment, the movant “must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 3:48 am
In the first, the court held that McCoy’s various drug-related charges didn’t merge, but after State v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am
As a matter of social policy and definitely to limit legal malpractice cases, Courts impose a very strict privity requirement. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 12:52 pm
Angela Shapiro McCoy, Appellant v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 4:31 am
The “continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations … where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]; see also Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167-168 [2001J). [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Coito v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am
A legal malpractice claim accrues when relief can be obtained in court (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]) and from the time the actual injury stemming from the malpractice occurs, not when it is discovered (Id.). [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
Here, in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Meighan defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issues of fact with respect to their liability for legal malpractice (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Northrop v Thorsen, 46 AD3d 780, 784; Jampolskaya v Victor Gomelsky, P.C., 36 AD3d 761, 762). [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 3:23 am
Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting admissible evidence establishing that the plaintiff could not prove that, in advising her to waive her right to request an award of her prior counsels' fees, they "failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession" (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301). [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 2:36 am
Here, Liotti's inexcusable failure to file timely opposition papers to the RICO defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to file a timely notice of appeal from the District Court's order granting such motion, clearly falls below the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession (see Conklin v Owen, 72 AD3d at 1007; McCoy v Tepper, 261 AD2d 592, 593). [read post]
4 May 2010, 3:59 am
" McCoy v. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:25 pm
The article observes that this was far more than the plaintiff had asked for, the defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the case (McCoy v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am
Here, former counsel demonstrated their prima facie establishment to judgment as a matter of law on their counterclaim to recover legal fees on an account stated in the total sum of $1,610 (see Givens v De Moya, 193 AD3d at 693-694; Joseph W. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 2:45 am
"In contrast to the legal effect of an individual merely submitting a "request for reconsideration," suppose the administrative body actually agrees to reconsider the matter and issue a new determination. [read post]
