Cohen v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Siegel

56 A.D.2d 782, 392 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 782 (Cohen v. Siegel) 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

Cohen v. Siegel, 56 A.D.2d 782, 392 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

We unanimously affirm, without costs and without disbursements, so much of the order entered September 14, 1976 in the Supreme Court, New York County, as directed defendants to comply with plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection, and upon their failure to do so within 30 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry, an order of preclusion may be entered against defendants without further notice. That portion of the appeal which is taken from the denial of defendant Harvey C. Siegel’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, is unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements, in light of the fact that there has been a substitution of such counsel by a "Consent to Change Attorney” executed January 19, 1977, and the record and brief filed in this court have been stamped to reflect such change. Additionally, by letter dated February 24, 1977 and addressed to this court, substituted counsel state, without reservation, that they now represent plaintiff-respondent in all respects for the prosecution of this action. Concur —Stevens, P. J., Birns, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

We unanimously affirm, without costs and without disbursements, so much of the order entered September 14, 1976 in the Supreme Court, New York County, as directed defendants to comply with plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection, and upon their failure to do so within 30 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry, an order of preclusion may be entered against defendants without further notice. That portion of the appeal which is taken from the denial of defendant Harvey C. Siegel’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, is unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements, in light of the fact that there has been a substitution of such counsel by a "Consent to Change Attorney” executed January 19, 1977, and the record and brief filed in this court have been stamped to reflect such change. Additionally, by letter dated February 24, 1977 and addressed to this court, substituted counsel state, without reservation, that they now represent plaintiff-respondent in all respects for the prosecution of this action. Concur —Stevens, P. J., Birns, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 782, 392 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-siegel-nyappdiv-1977.