Search for: "Mueller v Fruchter"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2010, 3:40 am
While we cannot tell why defendant took his appeal in Mueller v Fruchter ;2010 NY Slip Op 01771 ;Appellate Division, Second Department ; Decided on March 2, 2010 we do see that neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division thought much of the motion: "Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's first cause of action (see Rosenstrauss v Jacobs &… [read post]
17 May 2012, 3:22 am
Accordingly, the defendant's submissions in support of his motion for [*2]summary judgment did not establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff will be unable to prove the elements of legal malpractice and, thus, he failed to demonstrate his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Mueller v Fruchter, 71 AD3d 650, 651; Rosenstrauss v Jacobs & Jacobs, 56 AD3d 453, 454). [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 1:54 am
The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since he failed to show that the plaintiff was unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of her legal malpractice cause of action (see Mueller v Fruchter, 71 AD3d 650, 651; Velie v Ellis Law, P.C., 48 AD3d 674, 675; Pedro v Walker, 46 AD3d 789, 790; Eisenberger v Septimus, 44 AD3d 994, 995; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268… [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 1:55 am
The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since he failed to show that the plaintiff was unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of her legal malpractice cause of action (see Mueller v Fruchter, 71 AD3d 650, 651; Velie v Ellis Law, P.C., 48 AD3d 674, 675; Pedro v Walker, 46 AD3d 789, 790; Eisenberger v Septimus, 44 AD3d 994, 995; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268… [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:03 am
In response, the defendant is required to show that the plaintiff "failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused [the defendant] to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Mueller v Fruchter, 71 AD3d 650 [2010] [internal citations omitted]). [read post]
