value claim in New York

1994In People v Leone ( 25 N.Y.2d 511, 517-518 , supra ) we also warned against introduction of scientific evidence before its general reliability have been resolved in the scientific community, because "`the value of the test * * * could easily become the question in the trial rather than that person's guilt or credibility'" (quoting People v Davis , 343 Mich 348, 372 , 72 NW2d 269, 282 ).

1994In People v Leone ( 25 N.Y.2d 511, 517-518 , supra ) we also warned against introduction of scientific evidence before its general reliability have been resolved in the scientific community, because "`the value of the test * * * could easily become the question in the trial rather than that person's guilt or credibility'" (quoting People v Davis , 343 Mich 348, 372 , 72 NW2d 269, 282 ).

1989This offer of compromise was not reliable evidence of the value of the claim (see, Cook v State of New York, 105 Misc 2d 1040 ).

1982This is based on the public policy aimed at encouraging settlement and in recognition of the fact that concessions may be made to buy one’s peace, without reflecting the true value of the claim.” (Cook v State of New York, 105 Misc 2d 1040, 1045 ; cf. Miller v State of New York, 91 Misc 2d 1028 .) It is obvious from the injuries suffered by each of the Saltis that the $145,000 settlement did not represent the full measure of their damages..

1979(Brummer v State of New York, 25 AD2d 245 .) It is a creature of statute (see L 1971, ch 1155, § 9, repealed L 1977, ch 840, § 40) that arises only because the parties are unable to reach a settlement.

1978The agreement further provided: "It is further agreed that in any trial of a claim that may be filed by the claimant, neither the determination of the Commissioner of Transportation as hereinabove set forth, nor any data, estimates or appraisals made or prepared in support thereof, shall be evidence of the value of the claim or of the property affected by the claim.” Thus, by reason of the terms of the agreement, claimant was not entitled to use the agreement or the appraisal made in preparation for it as evidence of the value of damages (Murphy v State of New York, 29 AD2d 81 ; Brummer v Stat

1947If a corporate fiduciary has placed itself in a position where its interest or the interests of its stockholders may conflict with the interests of the cestui, the law ‘ stops the inquiry when the relation is disclosed, and sets aside the transaction or refuses to enforce it, at the instance of the party whom the fiduciary undertook to represent, without undertaking to deal with the question of abstract justice in the particular case.’ ” In considering a similar problem, the Court of Appeals has said that the question is not whether a corporate trustee and an affiliate corporation are separate

1945(Matter of Ryan, 291 N. Y. 376 .) The value of this rule of undivided loyalty depends, in part, on its rigorous and inflexible enforcement.

1938Co. ( 251 N. Y. 44 49 ), says: “ The value of a clause declaring a policy incontestable lies in no slight degree in the definiteness of the protection accorded to the holder.

1937Co. ( 251 N. Y. 44, 49 ): “ The value of a clause declaring a policy incontestable lies to no slight degree in the definiteness of the protection accorded to the holder. .

1908(See Magnin v. Dinsmore, Pres’t, etc., 70 N. Y. 410 , 26 Am.

1891Id.

1894In re Cotrell, 95 N. Y. 329 , decided in 1884, was the case of a will to which there was no attestation clause in due form, signed by a man and wife with whom the testator had boarded.

1892In re Cottrell, 95 N. Y. 329 , decided in 1884, was the case of a will to which there was no attestation clause in due form, signed by a man and wife with whom the testator had boarded.

2015Co., 85 NY2d 577 [1995]; see also Fasso v Doerr, 12 NY3d 80 [2009]).

2008Co., 351 F3d 204 [2003]) and the value of the claim was determined to be fixed at such amount in the rehabilitation (Matter of Frontier Ins.

2008Co., 27 AD3d 274 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]).

2007The Court noted with apparent approval that the parties had, in order to facilitate the trial court’s resolution of the legal questions, stipulated as to the value of the claim and the percentage of that sum which was represented by the settlement figure, and the suggested figure representing the proportion of the total that should be allocated as repayment of medical expenses was thus less than $36,000 ( 547 US at 274 ).

2007Notably, the state agency conceded that had a jury or judge allocated a sum for medical payment out of a larger award, the agency would have been entitled to reimburse itself only from the portion so allocated, even if the amount were smaller than the total amount of the Medicaid expenses ( 547 US at 282 n 11).

2006We start, as we must, from the basic premise that New York courts must give full faith and credit to a federal court judgment (see Garvin v Garvin, 302 NY 96, 103 [1951]; Union Commerce Leasing Corp. v Kanbar, 155 AD2d 396 [1989]).

2004Gibbs v Breed, Abbott & Morgan ( 271 AD2d 180 [2000]), relied upon by Fashion Boutique, did not involve a former client’s breach of fiduciary claim against his attorneys, but rather a typical commercial dispute as to the fiduciary obligation owed by a lawyer to his former partners when departing to join another firm.

2004Under New York law, to establish the elements of proximate cause and actual damages, where the injury is the value of the claim lost, the client must meet the “case within a case” requirement, demonstrating that “but for” the attorney’s conduct the client would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages (Reibman v Senie, 302 AD2d 290 [2003]; Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 386 [1992]).

1995(See, Matter of Brentnall, 194 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1993].) Respondent’s alternative argument is that the arbitrators reduced the value of the claim because they gave effect to the common-law rule of damages precluding double recovery, as codified in statutes such as CPLR 4533-b and General Obligations Law § 15-108.

1994In People v Leone ( 25 N.Y.2d 511, 517-518 , supra ) we also warned against introduction of scientific evidence before its general reliability have been resolved in the scientific community, because "`the value of the test * * * could easily become the question in the trial rather than that person's guilt or credibility'" (quoting People v Davis , 343 Mich 348, 372 , 72 NW2d 269, 282 ).

1993(VDR Realty Corp. v Mintz, 167 AD2d 986 [4th Dept 1990]; Skinner v Stone, Raskin & Israel, 724 F2d 264 [2d Cir 1983]; 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice, § 39.) Here plaintiff sues essentially for the difference in the value of his claim as having been diminished by defendants’ negligence; that is, the value of the claim had it been properly prepared and tried in the Court of Claims less any payments received in the Supreme Court action. (1 Hallen and Smith, op. cit., § 16.19.) Had any of the exonerated defendants in the underlying action pleaded an affirmative defense that the present defendants could

1993The only reference to such a claim occurs in the recent case of Walker v Stroh ( 192 AD2d 775 [3d Dept]), where, in a malpractice action for the alleged mishandling of a sale of stock controlling real estate, the claim for attendant emotional harm was stricken.

1990Where the injury suffered is the loss of a cause of action, the measure of damages is generally the value of the claim lost (see, Reynolds v Picciano, 29 AD2d 1012; see generally, 1 Mallen and Smith, Legal Malpractice § 16.4 [3d ed]).

1990Rosario (supra) states, however, that it is not the function of a court to try to determine the value to the defense of prior statements of witnesses.

1990Defendants dispute the value of plaintiffs lost GEICO claim, arguing that under ordinary contract principles the $100,000 recovery from GEICO should be reduced by one third, the amount of their original retainer agreement, because that is the sum plaintiff would have recovered if defendants had performed the contract (see, Lieberman v Templar Motor Co., 236 NY 139, 149 ; Spitz v Lesser, 302 NY 490, 492 ).

1990(People v Jones, supra, at 553 .) Concur—Kupferman, J.