Search for: "Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2009, 9:00 am
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP    [read post]
24 May 2018, 3:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
(Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 50.) [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 5:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Even accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, the complaint contains only conclusory allegations that any negligence by defendants in not raising an affirmative claim for interest in a fee dispute between plaintiff and two attorneys was the “but for” cause of plaintiff’s alleged damages (AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007]; Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader,… [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 4:40 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff’s allegations in this vein do not amount to actionable malpractice (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 50 [2015]). [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v CadwaladerWickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 50 (2015), citing AmBase, 8 NY3d at 434. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 4:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v CadwaladerWickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 50 [2015].) [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The proposed amendment failed to sufficiently allege that “but for” the defendants’ alleged negligence, the plaintiffs “would not have incurred any damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49-50; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302). [read post]
27 May 2009, 4:17 am
Here, in Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP ; 2009 NY Slip Op 04099 ; Decided on May 26, 2009 ; Appellate Division, First Department we see a well reasoned discussion of the difference. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These allegations generally state causes of action sounding in legal malpractice (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 49; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [c] [4]), and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 23 NY3d 10, 14 [2014]; cf. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These allegations generally state causes of action sounding in legal malpractice (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 49; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0)] rule 1.15[c][4]), and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 23 NY3d 10, 14; cf. [read post]
23 May 2018, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These allegations generally state causes of action sounding in legal malpractice (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 49; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [c] [4]), and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 23 NY3d 10, 14 [2014]; cf. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 4:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“‘An attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action, or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages'” (Nill v Schneider, 173 AD3d 753, 755, quoting Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft… [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 3:56 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
An “at-issue waiver” of the attorney-client privilege occurs where a party affirmatively places the subject matter of its own privileged communication at issue, such as by asserting a claim or defense that the party intends to prove by use of the privileged material (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2009]; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Ams.… [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 3:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
R&L established prima facie that it provided the advice expected of legal counsel exercising ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge and that it did not breach any duty toward plaintiffs (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49-50 [2015]). [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:34 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In this case, the alleged breach occurred after the Tolling Agreement had terminated and the forum selection clause here does not “contain a provision that an action commenced in violation or breach of the [Tolling Agreement] should be dismissed” (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & TaftLLP, 23 Misc 3d 1134 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51090 [U], *10 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009],… [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 4:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “The Pellegrini defendants have met their prima facie burden demonstrating that they did not depart from the requisite standard of care (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49-50 [2015] citing Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347 [2012]). [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 4:34 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiffs assert that there are credibility issues to be addressed at trial, but these assertions are speculative and unsupported, providing no basis to deny summary judgment (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 52 [2015]; Meyers v Rosen, 69 AD3d at 1098). [read post]
14 May 2020, 7:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“To plead a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, (2) that the attorney’s breach of that duty proximately caused plaintiff to (3) sustain actual and ascertainable damages (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY 3d 40, 49-50… [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 3:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007] [citations omitted]; see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49-50 [2015]). [read post]