Aponte v. Raychuk

160 A.D.2d 636
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1990·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

160 A.D.2d 636 (Aponte v. Raychuk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berman v. City of New York
37 N.E.3d 82 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, Inc.
185 Misc. 2d 282 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
City of New York v. Basil Co.
182 A.D.2d 307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Aponte v. Raychuk
172 A.D.2d 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)