Baker v. Kohler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Kohler

300 A.D.2d 135, 751 N.Y.S.2d 472, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 135 (Baker v. Kohler) 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

Baker v. Kohler, 300 A.D.2d 135, 751 N.Y.S.2d 472, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant Paul Mishkin from appearing as counsel on behalf of appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant Mishkin, an attorney, has already been called as a witness at trial and is likely to testify again, he was properly precluded from undertaking, in midtrial, to represent appellants by the expedient of having himself designated “of counsel” to the law firm acting as appellants’ counsel (see Feygin v Martell, 283 AD2d 304, 305; Zweig v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 125 AD2d 205, 206-207; see also Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 318). Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant Paul Mishkin from appearing as counsel on behalf of appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant Mishkin, an attorney, has already been called as a witness at trial and is likely to testify again, he was properly precluded from undertaking, in midtrial, to represent appellants by the expedient of having himself designated “of counsel” to the law firm acting as appellants’ counsel (see Feygin v Martell, 283 AD2d 304, 305; Zweig v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 125 AD2d 205, 206-207; see also Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 318). Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 135, 751 N.Y.S.2d 472, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-kohler-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack