Fleming v. 37th Avenue Investors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleming v. 37th Avenue Investors Corp.

170 A.D.2d 409

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 409 (Fleming v. 37th Avenue Investors Corp.) 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

Fleming v. 37th Avenue Investors Corp., 170 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered December 29, 1989, which denied, as moot, defendant Pote Management Corp.’s (“Pote”) motion seeking to disqualify the law firm of Previte Farber & Rosen from representing 37th Avenue Investors Corp. and from representing themselves as attorneys for Pote, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On December 17, 1990, the law firm of Previte Farber & Rosen withdrew from representing any of the instant parties, and new counsel was substituted. While defendant Pote asserts that the substitution should be considered a sham, there is no reason to question its validity. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify the firm of Previte Farber & Rosen was properly denied as academic. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Smith 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 (Carol Arber, J.), entered December 29, 1989, which denied, as moot, defendant Pote Management Corp.’s (“Pote”) motion seeking to disqualify the law firm of Previte Farber & Rosen from representing 37th Avenue Investors Corp. and from representing themselves as attorneys for Pote, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On December 17, 1990, the law firm of Previte Farber & Rosen withdrew from representing any of the instant parties, and new counsel was substituted. While defendant Pote asserts that the substitution should be considered a sham, there is no reason to question its validity. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify the firm of Previte Farber & Rosen was properly denied as academic. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-37th-avenue-investors-corp-nyappdiv-1991.