Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger, L. L. P. v. Stoessinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger, L. L. P. v. Stoessinger

283 A.D.2d 197, 724 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817

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

DecidedMay 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 197 (Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger, L. L. P. v. Stoessinger) 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

Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger, L. L. P. v. Stoessinger, 283 A.D.2d 197, 724 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 7, 2000, which, in an action to recover legal fees, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply [198]*198with 22 NYCER 136.5 and 1400.7, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied since the rules invoked, which require attorneys, upon conclusion of an attorney-client relationship in a domestic relations matter, to notify clients of their right to arbitration and to provide them with the standard instructions developed by the Chief Administrator regarding the arbitration procedure and a request for arbitration, do not apply to attorney-client relationships, such as this, that came into being before the rules went into effect (see, 22 NYCRR 136.1). Defendant’s argument that under 22 NYCRR 1400.3, plaintiff was required to provide him with a new retainer agreement when the individual attorney who throughout represented him took the representation with him upon joining plaintiff’s firm after the rules became effective, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 7, 2000, which, in an action to recover legal fees, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply [198]*198with 22 NYCER 136.5 and 1400.7, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied since the rules invoked, which require attorneys, upon conclusion of an attorney-client relationship in a domestic relations matter, to notify clients of their right to arbitration and to provide them with the standard instructions developed by the Chief Administrator regarding the arbitration procedure and a request for arbitration, do not apply to attorney-client relationships, such as this, that came into being before the rules went into effect (see, 22 NYCRR 136.1). Defendant’s argument that under 22 NYCRR 1400.3, plaintiff was required to provide him with a new retainer agreement when the individual attorney who throughout represented him took the representation with him upon joining plaintiff’s firm after the rules became effective, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 197, 724 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esanu-katsky-korins-siger-l-l-p-v-stoessinger-nyappdiv-2001.