Futuristic Realty Corp. v. Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Futuristic Realty Corp. v. Mauro

128 A.D.2d 670, 513 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44361

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 670 (Futuristic Realty Corp. v. Mauro) 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

Futuristic Realty Corp. v. Mauro, 128 A.D.2d 670, 513 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants Andrew H. Feuerstein and Julli Feuerstein appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme [671]*671Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated March 11, 1986, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for disqualification of their counsel.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for disqualification of the appellants’ counsel is denied.

The plaintiffs conclusory allegations fail to show that the appellants’ counsel ought to be called as a witness at the trial of this action; therefore, the plaintiffs motion to disqualify him should have been denied (see, Lefkowitz v Mr. Man, 111 AD2d 119, 121). Rubin, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants Andrew H. Feuerstein and Julli Feuerstein appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme [671]*671Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated March 11, 1986, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for disqualification of their counsel.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for disqualification of the appellants’ counsel is denied.

The plaintiffs conclusory allegations fail to show that the appellants’ counsel ought to be called as a witness at the trial of this action; therefore, the plaintiffs motion to disqualify him should have been denied (see, Lefkowitz v Mr. Man, 111 AD2d 119, 121). Rubin, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 670, 513 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futuristic-realty-corp-v-mauro-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack