East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici

58 A.D.3d 542, 870 N.Y.S.2d 790

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 542 (East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici) 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

East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici, 58 A.D.3d 542, 870 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 4, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Disqualification for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.21), which requires withdrawal by counsel if it appears that he will be called as a witness, was properly denied in the absence of a showing that the testimony of plaintiffs attorney will be necessary to establish the claim or prejudicial in the event the attorney is called (see Kirshon, Shron, Cornell & Teitelbaum v Savarese, 182 AD2d 911 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 4, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Disqualification for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.21), which requires withdrawal by counsel if it appears that he will be called as a witness, was properly denied in the absence of a showing that the testimony of plaintiffs attorney will be necessary to establish the claim or prejudicial in the event the attorney is called (see Kirshon, Shron, Cornell & Teitelbaum v Savarese, 182 AD2d 911 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 542, 870 N.Y.S.2d 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-forty-fourth-street-llc-v-bildirici-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack