§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Sylvan Lawrence, Deceased.---------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Respondents,v.Graubard Miller, et al., Appellants,----------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Brief

49 Cited authorities

  1. Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Dev. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 409 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 1,058 times
    Reversing dismissal of complaint seeking specific performance against builder

  2. McCoy v. Feinman

    99 N.Y.2d 295 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 703 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding a stipulation of settlement is "generally binding on parties that have legal capacity to negotiate"

  3. Shumsky v. Eisenstein

    96 N.Y.2d 164 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 365 times
    Holding that the "legal malpractice cause of action against defendant accrued ... when the Statute of Limitations expired on the underlying breach of contract action"

  4. Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl

    80 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 422 times
    Relying on expressio unius, statutory language, and legislative history to foreclose expansion of listed damages remedies

  5. McDermott v. Torre

    56 N.Y.2d 399 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 440 times
    Borrowing rationale from medical malpractice cases

  6. Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse

    84 N.Y.2d 535 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 226 times
    Accounting malpractice tort action

  7. Williamson v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4719 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that when auditor enters into engagement letter encompassing services only for a particular year, without contemplating further work as to that year, “the ‘mutual understanding’ required under the [continuous representation] doctrine d[oes] not exist”

  8. Borgia v. City of New York

    12 N.Y.2d 151 (N.Y. 1962)   Cited 421 times
    In Borgia, 12 N.Y.2d at 151, the Court of Appeals held that it would be "absurd to require a wronged patient to interrupt corrective efforts by serving a summons" on a physician or hospital.

  9. Glamm v. Allen

    57 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 223 times
    In Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87, 453 N.Y.S.2d 674, 439 N.E.2d 390 (1982), the court indicated that since it would be "impossible to envision a situation where commencing a malpractice suit would not affect the professional relationship, the rule of continuous representation tolls the running of the Statute of Limitations on the malpractice claim until the ongoing representation is completed."

  10. Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp

    66 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"