Search for: "Waggoner v Caruso"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2009, 3:02 am
Yesterday, we started to discuss Waggoner v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 4:33 am
In Waggoner v. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 11:23 am
Waggoner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 3:24 am
We reject that contention inasmuch as the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation during the time that the same attorney represented plaintiffs in the underlying action (see [*2]Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 7, affd ___ NY3d ___ [May 11, 2010]; HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP, 63 AD3d 534, 535)" [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 2:44 am
We reject that contention inasmuch as the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation during the time that the same attorney represented plaintiffs in the underlying action (see [*2]Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 7, affd ___ NY3d ___ [May 11, 2010]; HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP, 63 AD3d 534, 535)" [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 2:56 am
We reject that contention inasmuch as the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation during the time that the same attorney represented plaintiffs in the underlying action (see [*2]Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 7, affd ___ NY3d ___ [May 11, 2010]; HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP, 63 AD3d 534, 535)" [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 4:09 am
Collazo, 115 A.D.3d 147, 153 (1st Dep’t 2014); Waggoner v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:10 am
The claim should also be reinstated against Herrick Feinstein (see Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 6-7 [1st Dept 2009] [finding that sound policy considerations support the tolling of the statute of limitations under the continuous representation doctrine while the representation of the same matter in which the malpractice is alleged is ongoing], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]). [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 4:12 am
The record presents an issue of fact as to whether defendant continuously represented plaintiff in connection with a personal injury claim based on the accident, such as to toll the statute of limitations during that time (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 94 [1982]; Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 6-7 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 3:14 am
The claim should also be reinstated against Herrick Feinstein (see Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 6-7 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010] [finding that sound policy considerations support the tolling of the statute of limitations under the continuous representation doctrine while the representation of the same matter in which the malpractice is alleged is ongoing]). [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:09 am
" "In opposition, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Horn and Sager defendants committed malpractice by allegedly not calling the plaintiffs CPA as a witness, by advising him to enter into a modification of his March 12, 1999 child custody stipulation, or by failing to move to disqualify his former wife’s counsel (see generally Waggoner v Caruso, 14 NY3cl 874, 903 NYS2d 333 [2010]; Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 648 NYS2d 871 [1996]). [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 2:52 am
The court properly granted defendant Litchfield Cavo's motion to dismiss, since there was no evidence that Cavo, as superseding counsel, either contributed to the loss or could have done anything to correct the errors of predecessor counsel (see Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]; Rivas v Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC, 52 AD3d 401 [2008]). [read post]
8 May 2019, 3:55 am
Further, a legal malpractice claim cannot be stated if there is no attorney-client relationship between the parties (Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 3 [1 51 Dept2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]). [read post]
1 May 2019, 4:31 am
The purpose of the continuous representation doctrine is to avoid forcing a client to jeopardize the relationship with the attorney handling his or her case during the period that the attorney continues to represent them (Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 7 [1st Dept 2009], af(d, 14 NY3d 874 [2010]). [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 4:15 am
The Amended Complaint alleges that Todtman Nachamie represented plaintiffs from August 2004 until April 2005, whereupon RFS represented plaintiffs from April 20058 until April 2012. 9 Plaintiffs rely on two cases which apply the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations as to a prior law firm’s representation when attorneys from a prior firm left and moved to another firm (HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn, 63 AD3d 534 [l st Dept… [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 4:29 am
Further, a legal malpractice claim cannot be stated if there is no attorney-client relationship between the parties (Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]). [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
New Massachusetts companies. [read post]
