Ben-Yu Zhan v. Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ben-Yu Zhan v. Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp.

208 A.D.2d 668, 617 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9935

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 668 (Ben-Yu Zhan v. Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp.) 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

Ben-Yu Zhan v. Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 668, 617 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 31, 1992, which granted the motion made by the counsel for the defendant Wonton Deluxe, Inc., to withdraw as counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Haskell v Haskell, 185 AD2d 333). Based upon the papers submitted and the fact that the defendant Wonton Deluxe, Inc., did not oppose its counsel’s motion to withdraw, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting counsel to withdraw. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 31, 1992, which granted the motion made by the counsel for the defendant Wonton Deluxe, Inc., to withdraw as counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Haskell v Haskell, 185 AD2d 333). Based upon the papers submitted and the fact that the defendant Wonton Deluxe, Inc., did not oppose its counsel’s motion to withdraw, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting counsel to withdraw. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 668, 617 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-yu-zhan-v-sun-wing-wo-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack