Galluccio v. Fochios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galluccio v. Fochios

303 A.D.2d 190, 755 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 190 (Galluccio v. Fochios) 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

Galluccio v. Fochios, 303 A.D.2d 190, 755 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2002, which denied petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondent’s counsel in the underlying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to disqualify counsel was properly denied (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 [1987]; Luk Lamellen u. Kupplungsbau GmbH v Lerner, 167 AD2d 451 [1990]). Although respondent’s counsel represented him in negotiations resulting in the agreement that is the subject of the underlying arbitration, petitioner has not established that counsel’s testimony is necessary, since the same testimony that petitioner cites as necessary can be obtained from other witnesses, such as respondent himself or petitioner’s own former counsel. Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2002, which denied petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondent’s counsel in the underlying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to disqualify counsel was properly denied (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 [1987]; Luk Lamellen u. Kupplungsbau GmbH v Lerner, 167 AD2d 451 [1990]). Although respondent’s counsel represented him in negotiations resulting in the agreement that is the subject of the underlying arbitration, petitioner has not established that counsel’s testimony is necessary, since the same testimony that petitioner cites as necessary can be obtained from other witnesses, such as respondent himself or petitioner’s own former counsel. Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 190, 755 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galluccio-v-fochios-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack