Search for: "State v. Wardwell" Results 1 - 20 of 105
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
While Custodia is subject to state prudential regulation, it is not FDIC-insured or subject to federal prudential regulation and does not have a holding company subject to Federal Reserve oversight. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
. ― The changes eliminate elements of the 2019 Nonbank Designation Guidance that incorporated and addressed certain holdings of the MetLife v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 5:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of the retainer” (Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, 157 AD3d 479, 482; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428). [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
This summary must include (i) the person or persons affected; (ii) the date the incident was discovered and whether it is ongoing; (iii) whether any data was stolen, altered, accessed or used for any unauthorized purpose; (iv) the effect of the incident on the entity’s operations; and (v) whether the incident has been remediated or is currently being remediated. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 4:00 am by Elaine Hou
Symposium on Jed Stiglitz’s “The Reasoning State”: Jed Stiglitz’s book The Reasoning State makes the case that the legislature commits problems to the administrative state, which attains its legitimacy through reasoning and competition. [read post]
  Updated draft guidelines have not been released by the agencies, but the agencies have stated a goal of releasing new guidelines by the end of this year. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer” (Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 168 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2d Dept 2019]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435 [2007]). [read post]
23 May 2022, 3:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In light of the discretion imparted by the consent form, “the plaintiff[s’] contention that the alleged malpractice resulted in legally cognizable damages is conclusory and speculative inasmuch as it is premised on decisions that were within the sole discretion of the [hospital]” (Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d at 848; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 436; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d at… [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 3:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer” (Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 168 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2d Dept 2019]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435 [2007]). [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 5:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  “Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was correctly dismissed in accordance with CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. [read post]