Search for: "Mecca v Shang"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2011, 3:05 am
Hempstead v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 28 AD3d 746, 749; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569), and likewise subject to the three-year limitations period (see Harris v Kahn, Hoffman, Nonenmacher & Hochman, LLP, 59 AD3d 390; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872). [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:52 am
In addition, the plaintiff's cause of action sounding in fraud was duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action, because it arises from the same facts as the legal malpractice cause of action and does not allege distinct damages (see Tsafatinos v Lee David Auerbach, P.C., 80 AD3d at 749; Kvetnaya v Tylo, 49 AD3d 608, 609; Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d at 310; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569, 570). [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 2:51 am
In addition, the plaintiff's cause of action sounding in fraud was duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action, because it arises from the same facts as the legal malpractice cause of action and does not allege distinct damages (see Tsafatinos v Lee David Auerbach, P.C., 80 AD3d at 749; Kvetnaya v Tylo, 49 AD3d 608, 609; Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d at 310; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569, 570). [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 5:10 am
Coleman, 305 AD2d 151 [1st Dept 2003]; Mecca v. [read post]
