Greene v. Luckman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greene v. Luckman

212 A.D.2d 479, 624 N.Y.S.2d 801

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 479 (Greene v. Luckman) 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. Luckman, 212 A.D.2d 479, 624 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered October 6, 1993, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to [480]*480disqualify defendants’ attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Disqualification was properly denied since the prior representation of plaintiffs by defendants’ attorney in the dispute over credit card charges involved minimal efforts that have no relationship to the instant action for unfair competition (see, Matter of Hof, 102 AD2d 591, 596), and since defendants’ attorney’s testimony with respect to the first matter is not "strictly necessary” to the resolution of the matter at hand (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered October 6, 1993, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to [480]*480disqualify defendants’ attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Disqualification was properly denied since the prior representation of plaintiffs by defendants’ attorney in the dispute over credit card charges involved minimal efforts that have no relationship to the instant action for unfair competition (see, Matter of Hof, 102 AD2d 591, 596), and since defendants’ attorney’s testimony with respect to the first matter is not "strictly necessary” to the resolution of the matter at hand (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 479, 624 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-luckman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack