Aponte v. Raychuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aponte v. Raychuk

160 A.D.2d 636

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 636 (Aponte v. Raychuk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aponte v. Raychuk, 160 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 7, 1988, which, inter alia, enjoined defendant pendente lite from advertising legal services in certain purportedly deceptive language, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Defendant, an attorney, advertised his services in various newspapers, in advertisements which stated, "divorce, low fee, possible 10 days, green card”, followed by defendant’s name, office address, and telephone number. In the order now appealed from, the court enjoined defendant from continuing these advertisements, finding that a showing had been made that the advertisement was deceptive within the meaning of the New York City Consumer Protection Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 20-700 et seq.). In affirming the granting of the preliminary injunction, we find no inconsistency between the local law and the legislative delegation of authority to this court to regulate the conduct of attorneys. Nor are we able to discern any implied legislative intent to preempt this area of regulation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ. [See, 144 Mise 2d 864.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 7, 1988, which, inter alia, enjoined defendant pendente lite from advertising legal services in certain purportedly deceptive language, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Defendant, an attorney, advertised his services in various newspapers, in advertisements which stated, "divorce, low fee, possible 10 days, green card”, followed by defendant’s name, office address, and telephone number. In the order now appealed from, the court enjoined defendant from continuing these advertisements, finding that a showing had been made that the advertisement was deceptive within the meaning of the New York City Consumer Protection Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 20-700 et seq.). In affirming the granting of the preliminary injunction, we find no inconsistency between the local law and the legislative delegation of authority to this court to regulate the conduct of attorneys. Nor are we able to discern any implied legislative intent to preempt this area of regulation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ. [See, 144 Mise 2d 864.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aponte-v-raychuk-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack