Donato v. Gritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donato v. Gritz

104 A.D.2d 1025, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20461

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 29, 1984·Published

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, defendants appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), dated March 12, 1984, as denied those branches of their respective motions which sought to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney from representing him in the instant action.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of demonstrable prejudice to defendants, we conclude that there is no basis to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel (see Lopez v Precision Papers, 99 AD2d 507). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, 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 legal malpractice, defendants appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), dated March 12, 1984, as denied those branches of their respective motions which sought to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney from representing him in the instant action.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of demonstrable prejudice to defendants, we conclude that there is no basis to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel (see Lopez v Precision Papers, 99 AD2d 507). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Donato v. Gritz, 104 A.D.2d 1025, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

104 A.D.2d 1025 (Donato v. Gritz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related