Search for: "Spiegel v. Reynolds" Results 1 - 7 of 7
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2019, 4:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Tooma v Grossbarth, 121 AD3d at 1095-1096; Endless Ocean, LLC v Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, 113 AD3d 587, 589 [2014]; Reynolds v Picciano, 29 AD2d 1012, 1012 [1968]). [read post]