Search for: "Melnick v Farrell"
Results 1 - 1
of 1
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2018, 4:05 am
Andrew’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendant engaged in a course of continuous representation intended to rectify or mitigate the initial act of alleged malpractice (see Melnick v Farrell, 128 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2015]; DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 812-813 [2011]; Gravel v Cicola, 297 AD2d 620, 621 [2002]). [read post]