Greene v. Greene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greene v. Greene

64 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 558 (Greene v. Greene) 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

Greene v. Greene, 64 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 22, 1978, affirmed for the reasons stated by Hughes, J. Plaintiff-respondent shall recover of appellants $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P. and Birns, J. dissent in the following memorandum by Kupferman, J. P.: I dissent and would reverse and grant the motion. My determination assumes, of course, the good faith of the third-party defendants-respondents. However, I do not believe that a partner in a law firm may, after leaving the firm, accept as a client one who previously was represented by the law firm and now, among other things, brings suit against them. (Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288; Rotante v Lawrence Hosp., 46 AD2d 199; Consolidated Theatres v Warner Bros. Circuit Mgt. Corp., 216 F2d 920; cf. Cinema 5 v Cinerama, Inc., 528 F2d 1384; see, also, The Unfortunate Lawyer—Counsel on the Ropes in the Second Circuit, Bronx Bar Advocate, vol 22, No. 3, May-June 1975, p 71.)

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 22, 1978, affirmed for the reasons stated by Hughes, J. Plaintiff-respondent shall recover of appellants $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P. and Birns, J. dissent in the following memorandum by Kupferman, J. P.: I dissent and would reverse and grant the motion. My determination assumes, of course, the good faith of the third-party defendants-respondents. However, I do not believe that a partner in a law firm may, after leaving the firm, accept as a client one who previously was represented by the law firm and now, among other things, brings suit against them. (Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288; Rotante v Lawrence Hosp., 46 AD2d 199; Consolidated Theatres v Warner Bros. Circuit Mgt. Corp., 216 F2d 920; cf. Cinema 5 v Cinerama, Inc., 528 F2d 1384; see, also, The Unfortunate Lawyer—Counsel on the Ropes in the Second Circuit, Bronx Bar Advocate, vol 22, No. 3, May-June 1975, p 71.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-greene-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack