Search for: "State v. Eisenstein"
Results 1 - 20
of 68
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2023, 7:21 pm
State laboratories can send STEC cultures to the CDC to determine the serotype. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 3:53 am
Under the continuous representation doctrine, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is tolled “only where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (McCoy, 99 NY2d at 306; Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001]). [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 9:07 am
State laboratories can send STEC cultures to the CDC to determine the serotype. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:58 am
“Accrual is measured from the commission of the alleged malpractice, when all facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred and the aggrieved party can obtain relief in court, regardless of when the operative facts are discovered by the plaintiff” (Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164 [citations omitted]; see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 166). [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 1:33 pm
United States in 2016. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 6:41 am
However, tolling resulting from continuous representation ends “once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney’s withdrawal from representation” (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 170-171 [2001]; accord RJR Mech. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 3:06 am
. generally limited to the course of representation concerning a specific legal matter,” not merely a continuing relation between the attorney and client (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001]). [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 8:21 am
’” Meehan v. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 3:15 am
The Department of State’s Division of Licensing Services Enforcement Unit (hereinafter the Department) then began an investigation into plaintiff’s conduct. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 4:44 pm
Eisenstein v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 4:42 am
“While the precise date of the alleged malpractice is not clear, even giving plaintiff the benefit of the continuous representation (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164 [2001]) and the continuing wrong doctrine (see Harvey v Metropolitan Life Ins. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:47 am
Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 168 (2001). [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
They also wanted Fischbarg to apply for sale-of-liquor licenses from the New York State Liquor Authority (“the SLA”). [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
They also wanted Fischbarg to apply for sale-of-liquor licenses from the New York State Liquor Authority (“the SLA”). [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 4:26 am
Servs., LLC v Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, 110 AD3d 426), rather than granting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 4:15 am
Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for fraud, as they never alleged that they paid the allegedly fraudulent bills and suffered injury as a result (see Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]). [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am
” “Pursuant to CPLR 214(6), an action for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years from the date of accrual (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 166 [2001]). [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 6:36 pm
However, the bench that heard today’s oral argument in Howell v. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 11:10 am
The resulting class action, Handschu v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 1:26 pm
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked questions harking back to his due process concurrence in Albright v. [read post]
