Search for: "State v. Beatty"
Results 41 - 60
of 160
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2017, 5:47 pm
Pleicones]), no other Justice does so, and two dissenting Justices (Toal and Kittredge) argue that the standard of review is "one at law", not equity (Opinions, pp. 55-57, and 39 at n. 31).For his part, Chief Justice Beatty in his opinion makes absolutely no mention of the standard of review which he thinks applies to the case, although he states that he "disagree[s] with the analysis of the majority" (Opinions at 36; emphasis added), so… [read post]
30 May 2018, 2:16 pm
Supreme Court in Jones v. [read post]
30 May 2018, 12:01 pm
In today’s case (Karpowicz v. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 2:20 pm
In United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2009, 4:51 am
Beattie v. [read post]
2 May 2009, 3:03 pm
Dunn v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 3:44 am
On this record, triable issues of fact exist as to whether, but for defendant’s failure to inform plaintiff’s principal that it could be locked into the sale agreement in perpetuity if it did not obtain municipal approval for redevelopment, it would not have entered into the contract as written and would have avoided litigation with the buyer who sued for specific performance (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 151 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2017]; Escape… [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 1:33 pm
Chief Justice Donald Beatty and Justice John Cannon Few joined Hearn in the majority. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 6:17 am
In Gandhi v. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 10:22 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Jesus Leal v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 5:52 am
Beattie). [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 4:12 am
. was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395 [1st Dept 1997]). [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 2:16 pm
He cited two subsequent cases, State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 10:00 pm
VAN SKIKE V. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 4:05 am
In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 4:14 am
These factual allegations, as supplemented by plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to defendant attorney’s dismissal motion, sufficiently alleged a legal malpractice claim (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 4:25 am
The legal malpractice case is first dismissed: “Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice in connection with an underlying settlement fails to state a cause of action in the absence of allegations that the “settlement . . . was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395… [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 12:31 pm
Then there is the other extreme of Beattie v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 8:25 am
Vasques quoted the 1919 case of Beatty v. [read post]
