Search for: "Pyne v. Harry"
Results 1 - 1
of 1
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2010, 3:46 am
It cannot be said that the failure of plaintiffs' successor counsel to learn of the Harris decision and file a notice of appeal within that narrow time period constituted an "intervening and superseding failure of plaintiff[s'] successor [counsel]" to file a timely notice of appeal (Pyne v Block & Assoc., 305 AD2d 213). [read post]
