Search for: "Zornes v. Zornes" Results 1 - 20 of 26
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Apr 2007, 11:23 am
Here are summaries of 2 short, but relevant, decisions: Zorn v Gilbert, 2007 NY Slip Op 02793--The Court... [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 8:13 am
I am so disappointed I can’t make it to this event tonight in Naperville; it would be a blast to listen to both talk about how blogs can influence the debate. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 3:08 am
"The cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrued when the defendant allegedly failed to advise the plaintiff of her equitable distribution rights and failed to disclose a conflict of interest (see Venturella-Ferretti v Kinzler, 306 AD2d 465, 466; see also Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 305). [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An action to recover damages arising from legal malpractice must be commenced within three years after accrual” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 933-934 [2007] [citation omitted]; see CPLR 214 [6]). [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 7:13 am by Adam Chandler
Peppers and Christopher Zorn respond to a recent New York Times editorial on Supreme Court law clerk hiring, in the National Law Journal. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
Zorn, 943 A.2d 573, 580 (Me.2008) (looking only to whether the foreign jurisdiction could have established personal jurisdiction under Maine law); Sung Hwan Co. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“The continuousrepresentation doctrine tolls a statute of limitations where there is a mutual understa~ding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934 [2007] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:40 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 91-94 [1982]; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 735 [2015]; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice “until the attorney’s continuing… [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Accordingly, the legal malpractice claims should not have been dismissed since Levinson failed to establish that they were time-barred (see Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934; 730 J & J, LLC v Polizzotto & Polizzotto, Esqs., 69 AD3d 704; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972, 974). [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In [*2]response, the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing either that she commenced the action within the applicable three-year limitations period, or that the continuous representation toll applied in this case, since all of the documentary evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the legal representation had ended more than three years before this action was commenced, and there was no mutual understanding of a need for ongoing legal representation in the underlying matter… [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 91-94; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 735; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice “until the attorney’s continuing representation… [read post]