Flessas v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flessas v. Heyman

107 A.D.2d 608

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.2d 608 (Flessas v. Heyman) 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

Flessas v. Heyman, 107 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (E. Danzig, J.), entered September 13, 1984, denying defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorney, dismissed, as moot, without costs.

In this action to recover for injuries suffered as a result of the alleged negligence of defendants, it was ascertained that the attorney assigned by defendants’ attorney of record to review the case in its initial stages was the wife of the attorney assigned by the law firm representing plaintiffs to try the case for plaintiffs. A motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorneys was made and denied. This appeal by defendants followed.

In the interim, the law firm then representing plaintiffs withdrew and a stipulation was entered into substituting other counsel for plaintiffs.

Since defendants have already been accorded all the relief which they could obtain by a determination on the merits, the appeal becomes academic. Accordingly, we dismiss it as moot. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Alexander, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (E. Danzig, J.), entered September 13, 1984, denying defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorney, dismissed, as moot, without costs.

In this action to recover for injuries suffered as a result of the alleged negligence of defendants, it was ascertained that the attorney assigned by defendants’ attorney of record to review the case in its initial stages was the wife of the attorney assigned by the law firm representing plaintiffs to try the case for plaintiffs. A motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorneys was made and denied. This appeal by defendants followed.

In the interim, the law firm then representing plaintiffs withdrew and a stipulation was entered into substituting other counsel for plaintiffs.

Since defendants have already been accorded all the relief which they could obtain by a determination on the merits, the appeal becomes academic. Accordingly, we dismiss it as moot. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flessas-v-heyman-nyappdiv-1985.