East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici

58 A.D.3d 542, 870 N.Y.S.2d 790
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

58 A.D.3d 542 (East Forty-Fourth Street LLC v. Bildirici) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Global Horizon Funding LLC v. Prestige Trucking Global LLC
81 Misc. 3d 1228 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Salomone v. Abramson
48 Misc. 3d 318 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Corrieri v. Schwartz & Fang, P.C.
106 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)