Search for: "Purcell v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 184
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
Further, the plaintiff’s allegation that she sustained actual and ascertainable damages as a result of the defendants’ negligence also was conclusory and speculative (see Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847-848). [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 9:03 pm
The guidance, issued in the aftermath of the Dobbs v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 3:45 am
Where, as here, the defendants submitted evidentiary material in support of that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint, the criterion becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether one is stated (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 845). [read post]
20 Aug 2022, 4:50 am
While the Eleventh Circuit based its decision on a US Supreme Court case, Purcell v. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 4:42 am
“Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action” (Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d at 848; see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d at 909). [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 3:44 am
” “Here, the plaintiff failed to state causes of action sounding in breach of contract, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, as she failed to adequately allege the element of [*2]damages with respect to each of those causes of action (see Denisco v Uysal, 195 AD3d 989 [2021]; McSpedon v Levine, 158 AD3d 618, 621 [2018]; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848 [2012]; Smith v Chase… [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 6:00 pm
The Louisiana dispute, Ardoin v. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 9:17 pm
Today's advance release criminal law opinion: State v. [read post]
23 May 2022, 3:58 am
However, the plaintiffs’ contention “rests on speculation as to how [the hospital] would have responded to these [steps]” (Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d at 848). [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:20 pm
Ridpath A, Reddy V, Layton M, et al. [read post]
11 May 2022, 6:20 am
Of course, the response to this strategem is the Purcell principle. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 3:58 am
Here, the plaintiff failed to state causes of action sounding in breach of contract, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, as she failed to adequately allege the element of [*2]damages with respect to each of those causes of action (see Denisco v Uysal, 195 AD3d 989; McSpedon v Levine, 158 AD3d 618, 621; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848; Smith v Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, 293 AD2d 598,… [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 6:42 pm
In Bush v. [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 6:42 am
” The irrevocable trust stated that the decedent was “specifically disinheriting Peter Schmidt and his descendants. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 4:00 am
Yet while Merrill v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 10:35 pm
[Merrill v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 7:42 pm
” He stated that the Purcell principle required the court to stay the injunction with respect to 2022 elections and if the lower court’s judgment was affirmed after appellate review, the injunction would take effect for congressional elections after 2022. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 9:23 am
Professor Karlan focuses on Crawford v. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 3:47 am
Volpe v Munoz & Assoc., LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 00516 Decided on January 28, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department gives a bullet point review of how this case failed: “The complaint fails to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 11:47 am
Med. 54, 56, 58 (1985). [11] See, e.g., “Pat Purcell, Angry Man,” Pottsville Republican (Pottsville, PA) at p.1 (Mar. 14, 1987); Frank Scholz, “Help Coming for Asbestos Victims Living Here,” The Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA Sept. 1 [read post]
