Search for: "State v. Dach"
Results 1 - 20
of 65
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2007, 6:25 am
That's not "damage," that's more like a windfall to us.Talk about having your cake ....For a copy of the the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer (AD2)For a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision, please use this link: Rudolf v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 4:04 am
In City National Bank v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 4:06 am
Joan Dachs Bais Yaakov Elementary School-Yeshivas Tigeres Tzva v City of Evanston, 2015 IL App. (1st) 121809-U (unpub. 3/6/2015) The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2015/1stDistrict/1131809_R23.pdfFiled under: Current Caselaw, RLUIPA Tagged: religious uses [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 4:07 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442-43 (2007); Exeter Law Group v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 4:38 am
Here the account stated claim fails and the breach of fiduciary duty claim withstands attack. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 8:05 am
Dachs, Norman and Dachs, Jonathan, NYLJ, June 12, 1990. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 12:31 pm
Co. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 4:20 am
In Harris v Barbera 2018 NY Slip Op 05023 Decided on July 5, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department (without much explanation) held that while the complaint stated a cause of action for failing to illuminate marital dissipation, the proofs were not. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 5:45 am
Conklin, who represented plaintiff in an underlying action alleging accounting malpractice, among other things, were entitled to dismissal of the complaint given that plaintiff failed to allege that defendants were negligent or that they proximately caused any damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Fielding v Kupferman, 65 AD3d 437, 442 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 5:19 am
Plaintiff’s contention that the motion court in the fee dispute would have awarded her predecision interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 is at best speculative (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, 443 [2007]; see also Manufacturer’s & Traders Trust Co. v Reliance Ins. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 5:46 am
” “The amended complaint states a cause of action for legal malpractice and the documents submitted do not utterly refute the factual allegations underlying that cause of action (see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
6 May 2022, 4:12 am
“The amended complaint states a cause of action for legal malpractice and the documents submitted do not utterly refute the factual allegations underlying that cause of action (see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
27 Sep 2012, 9:51 am
Co. v Rivera, 12 NY3d 602, 608; Raffellini v State Farm Mut. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:44 am
” “The amended complaint states a cause of action for legal malpractice and the documents submitted do not utterly refute the factual allegations underlying that cause of action (see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 2:29 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007), quoting McCoy v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 3:44 am
Plaintiff’s alleged damages, as they relate to legal expenses defending the specific performance action, may be found to be proximately related to defendant’s negligent advice related to the issue of the contingency clause (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 443). [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 6:35 am
Back on August 19th, I posted about the Baldwin v. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 4:40 am
The motion court applied the proper standard of care to defendants in this legal malpractice action (see Bassim v Halliday, 234 AD2d 628 [3d Dept 1996], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1001 [1997]; see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 4:39 am
"The Second Department of the Appellate Division recently stated in Kluczka v Lecci (63 AD3d 796 [2009]) that: "[i]n order to prevail in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable… [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am
“To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; see Valley Ventures, LLC v Joseph J. [read post]
