Curcio v. Dillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curcio v. Dillon

253 A.D.2d 504, 676 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8954

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 18, 1998·Published

Opinion

In a [505]*505proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§ 2-110, 2-124, and 16-104, inter alia, to enjoin the appellants from “employing the name ‘Conservative Party’ ”, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 29, 1998, which granted the petition to the extent of enjoining “the Liberty Conservative Club of Brookhaven * * * from using the term ‘ [Conservative’ in the title of their organization” unless they complied with certain conditions.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On the record before us and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed (see, Matter of Kelly v Curcio, 180 AD2d 737, 738).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the petitioner’s motion to disqualify the attorney for the appellant George Lessler (see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a [505]*505proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§ 2-110, 2-124, and 16-104, inter alia, to enjoin the appellants from “employing the name ‘Conservative Party’ ”, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 29, 1998, which granted the petition to the extent of enjoining “the Liberty Conservative Club of Brookhaven * * * from using the term ‘ [Conservative’ in the title of their organization” unless they complied with certain conditions.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On the record before us and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed (see, Matter of Kelly v Curcio, 180 AD2d 737, 738).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the petitioner’s motion to disqualify the attorney for the appellant George Lessler (see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Curcio v. Dillon, 253 A.D.2d 504, 676 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 504 (Curcio v. Dillon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related