Search for: "Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2019, 4:21 am
However, plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment in the legal malpractice counterclaim by showing that defendants could not prove that but for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the TRO hearing the hearing court would have denied the TRO or set a shorter return date (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004] [holding that… [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 2:41 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 58 AD3d 1, 9-10 [2008]; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271 [2004]. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:42 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 58 AD3d 1, 9-10 [2008]; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271 [2004]. [read post]
21 Jan 2022, 5:33 am
Thus, plaintiff failed to show, as required to state a cause of action for legal malpractice, that but for defendants’ conduct he would have prevailed in the underlying action (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]). [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 9:06 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d at 10; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d at 271-272). [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 3:33 am
Specifically, the complaint seeks to recover $4,844,451 consisting of (1) $2,186,932 for JY’s legal fees incurred in the arbitration, which CPI was required to pay as part of the arbitration panel’s Final Award, (2) $1,064,992 in legal fees that plaintiffs paid its counsel in connection with the arbitration proceeding, (3) $731,000 in costs and expenses arising out of the arbitration, (4) $397,343.59 in legal fees paid by plaintiffs to Akin Gump, and (5) $464,513.56 in legal fees to… [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:39 am
The allegations in the complaint establish that but for defendants’ conduct in withdrawing the appeal from Justice Ecker’s ruling, and in sending a different lawyer than the one promised to represent him at the reinstatement hearing, he would not have incurred damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of… [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:45 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 8 [2008]; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267 [2004]). [read post]
7 May 2018, 4:21 am
The allegations in the complaint establish that but for defendants’ conduct in withdrawing the appeal from Justice Ecker’s ruling, and in sending a different lawyer than the one promised to represent him at the reinstatement hearing, he would not have incurred damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of… [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 5:10 am
Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d at 271-71). [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 3:51 am
Finally, plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims are, essentially, claims of legal malpractice and, thus, they fail for the reasons detailed above (see Guiles v Simser, 35 AD3d at 1055; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271-272 [2004]). [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 4:37 am
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci,… [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 4:23 am
In the attorney liability context, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by the same standard as a legal malpractice{**168 AD3d at 76} claim (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271-272 [1st Dept 2004]). [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 4:52 am
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci,… [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 3:45 am
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 3:56 am
To satisfy the pleading requirement for causation, a plaintiff must allege that “‘but for’ the attorney’s conduct [or nonfeasance], the client would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages” ( Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; Cosmetics Plus Group, Ltd.… [read post]
10 Nov 2023, 6:22 am
And when the alleged injury is the value of the claim lost, plaintiff “mustmeet the ‘case within a case’ requirement, demonstrating that ‘but for’ theattorney’s conduct the client would have prevailed in the underlying matter orwould not have sustained any ascertainable damages” ( Weil, Gotshal & Manges,LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271… [read post]
24 May 2019, 4:36 am
Thus, a plaintiff must meet the “case within a case” requirement to avoid dismissal (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 3:33 am
" Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 2:37 am
Davis Polk & Wardwell, 30 AD3d 171, 172 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 NY3d 428 [2007]; see also Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. [read post]
