Search for: "Santulli v. ENGLERT REILLY"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2008, 10:39 am
Some time ago, the Court of Appeals decided Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P.C., 78 N.Y.2d 700, [1992]. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 3:04 am
Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P.C., 78 NY2d 700, 708 [1992]; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc., Inc., 43 NY2d 389, 394-395 [1977]). [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 4:57 am
Lastly, plaintiff’s reliance on Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700, 705 [1992] is misplaced: the Court of Appeals merely noted that whether a cause of action is framed in contractual or malpractice terms, the appropriate statute of limitations is determined based on the remedy the plaintiff seeks. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700, 709). [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 4:31 am
” From the Dissent “New York recognizes a distinct claim for professional malpractice and allows parties to pursue simultaneously a professional malpractice claim and a breach of contract claim (see Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700 [1992]); Sears, Roebuck v Enco, 43 NY2d 389 [1977]; see also Robins v Finestone, 308 NY 543 [1955]). [read post]
