Bruno v. Von Der Linn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bruno v. Von Der Linn

19 A.D.2d 887, 244 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2997

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 887 (Bruno v. Von Der Linn) 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

Bruno v. Von Der Linn, 19 A.D.2d 887, 244 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

An a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, Thomas V. Kingham, attorney for the defendants Von Der Linn and Rigts, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1963, which denied his motion for leave to withdraw as attorney for the defendant Rigts. Order reversed, without costs; and motion granted without prejudice to any claims which may arise among the defendant Rigts, attorney Kingham, the defendant Virginia Von Der Linn and her insurer (the General Accident Pire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd.). An attorney who, as here, has been provided by an insurer to defend an action on behalf of both its insured and the driver of the insured’s vehicle (the defendants Von Der Linn and Rigts, respectively), is entitled to withdraw from further participation in the action as attorney for the driver when undisputed proof has been submitted showing that the latter had demanded money in payment for his pretrial testimony; that he had refused to testify when his money demand was not met; and that as a consequence of his default in appearing for the pretrial examination his answer was struck out by the court. Such conduct on the part of the driver is evidence not only of a conflict of interest between him and the insured but constitutes good cause per se for termination of the attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the driver. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

An a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, Thomas V. Kingham, attorney for the defendants Von Der Linn and Rigts, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1963, which denied his motion for leave to withdraw as attorney for the defendant Rigts. Order reversed, without costs; and motion granted without prejudice to any claims which may arise among the defendant Rigts, attorney Kingham, the defendant Virginia Von Der Linn and her insurer (the General Accident Pire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd.). An attorney who, as here, has been provided by an insurer to defend an action on behalf of both its insured and the driver of the insured’s vehicle (the defendants Von Der Linn and Rigts, respectively), is entitled to withdraw from further participation in the action as attorney for the driver when undisputed proof has been submitted showing that the latter had demanded money in payment for his pretrial testimony; that he had refused to testify when his money demand was not met; and that as a consequence of his default in appearing for the pretrial examination his answer was struck out by the court. Such conduct on the part of the driver is evidence not only of a conflict of interest between him and the insured but constitutes good cause per se for termination of the attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the driver. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 887, 244 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-von-der-linn-nyappdiv-1963.