Search for: "Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim"
Results 1 - 20
of 83
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2024, 12:50 pm
First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 6:05 am
Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428,430 (1st Dept. 1990). [read post]
19 May 2023, 3:51 am
The settlement of the wife’s elective share claim does not utterly refute plaintiffs’ allegations of proximate cause because the complaint supports the inference that the settlement was effectively compelled by defendants’ malpractice (see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:52 am
Imaging Co. v General Bus. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 6:06 am
” (See Prosecutor v Karadzić (Decision) 16 May 1995 (ICTY Trial Chamber) paras 23-24.) [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 5:14 am
Plaintiff’s presumption that there would be a continuation of the retainer agreement she signed with J&S when Schlesinger moved to MLF is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (See Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484,486 [1 st Dept 2018] citing Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 94, 99 [1st Dept 2008] [“a party cannot create the relationship based on his or her own beliefs or actions”]; Jane St. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 11:59 am
Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 3:19 am
Nor is it dispositive that plaintiffs and the Williams Defendants did not have a retainer agreement with respect to the engagement, given Stone’s explanation of the agreement he had with the Williams Defendants, the advice they gave him, the acts he undertook as part of the Williams Defendants’ engagement, and his reliance on their advice (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 94, 99 [1st Dept 2008]). [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 2:59 pm
., Sarafin v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 7:46 pm
Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 7:46 pm
Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:53 am
Nor is it dispositive that plaintiffs and the Williams Defendants did not have a retainer agreement with respect to the engagement, given Stone’s explanation of the agreement he had with the Williams Defendants, the advice they gave him, the acts he undertook as part of the Williams Defendants’ engagement, and his reliance on their advice (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 4:00 am
“‘A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel'” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1505, quoting Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430; see Gad v Sherman, 160 AD3d 622, 623). [read post]
28 Mar 2021, 5:00 pm
[4] Id. at 3 (quoting Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 (1995)). [read post]
19 Nov 2020, 6:47 am
Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) (“A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 2:24 pm
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 430 (1st Dep’t 1990); see also Russo v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 6:45 am
(Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 434-35 [1st Dept 1990]; cf. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 5:00 am
’” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990], citing Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985].) [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 11:04 pm
Thus, English courts allow a judgment debtor to raise fraud at the recognition and enforcement stage even if no new evidence is adduced and fraud had been considered and dismissed by the court of origin (Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co (1882) 10 QBD 295). [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 5:30 am
” The first live webinar in the series, The Legacy of Lawrence v. [read post]
