Search for: "Rosenthal v. Rosenthal" Results 1 - 20 of 534
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2025, 2:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Assuming arguendo that Kalyuzhny was acting as SCAS’s attorney during his communications with Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to plead “sufficient facts to demonstrate an intent to deceive the court or any party” (Schiller v Bender, Burrows and Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2d Dept 2014]; Grasso v Guarino, 227 AD3d 872, 873 [2d Dept 2024]). [read post]
17 Mar 2025, 6:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Generally, to recover damages for legal malpractice, a client must prove: “(1) that the [law firm] failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the [client] would have been successful in the underlying action had the [law firm] exercised due care” (Chamberlain, D’Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP v Wilson, 136 AD3d 1326, 1327 [4th Dept… [read post]
27 Jan 2025, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Nesiah, V., Mickelson, K. , Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2025).Jeffrey A. [read post]
6 Dec 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
A virtual tour of Hawaii's King Kamehameha V Judiciary History Center (KHON). [read post]
10 Oct 2024, 6:31 pm
 Pix Credit here I am delighted to circulate a rough discussion draft I have prepared in anticipation of its first presentation at a conference organized by the remarkable Martin Belov, Professor in Constitutional and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Sofia ‘St. [read post]
18 Aug 2024, 8:00 am by Gene Takagi
Notable Nonprofit Posts, Articles, & Other Resources: Candid’s 2024 Nonprofit Compensation Report: Executive compensation is on the rise, but not for everyone (Candid) Grant Makers, Here’s How to Support Nonprofits Led by People of Color (Aisha Benson, Chronicle of Philanthropy) AAUW Statement Regarding Do No Harm v. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 8:32 am by Gene Takagi
” NY Times “The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to limit access to a widely used abortion medication, rejecting a challenge from antiabortion doctors two years after the court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. [read post]