Search for: "Tantleff v Kestenbaum & Mark"
Results 1 - 3
of 3
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2017, 3:55 am
In opposition, Dineen failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Tantleff v Kestenbaum & Mark, 131 AD3d 955). [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 4:30 am
“‘What constitutes a loss of client confidence is fact specific, varying from case to case, but may be demonstrated by relevant documentary evidence involving the parties, or by the client’s actions'” (Tantleff v Kestenbaum & Mark, 131 AD3d 955, 957, quoting Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 168). [read post]
31 May 2019, 4:17 am
Here, the plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action accrued on March 20, 2012, when she, acting on the defendants’ advice, filed the bankruptcy petition (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; Tantleff v Kestenbaum & Mark, 131 AD3d 955, 956; Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d 795, 796). [read post]
