Haymes v. Haymes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haymes v. Haymes

247 A.D.2d 270, 667 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1415

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 270 (Haymes v. Haymes) 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

Haymes v. Haymes, 247 A.D.2d 270, 667 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered December 11, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing plaintiff that concerns the remainder of her fee proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in directing appellant to represent plaintiff only for the remainder of the fee proceeding (see, Haskell v Haskell, 185 AD2d 333). The record fails to support appellant’s claim that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship with plaintiff or that other counsel interfered with appellant’s litigation strategy with respect to the fee application. Further, plaintiff would have been greatly prejudiced if the withdrawal motion were granted in its entirety since lengthy proceedings on the fee matter had already been conducted at the time the motion was made. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, 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 (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered December 11, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing plaintiff that concerns the remainder of her fee proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in directing appellant to represent plaintiff only for the remainder of the fee proceeding (see, Haskell v Haskell, 185 AD2d 333). The record fails to support appellant’s claim that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship with plaintiff or that other counsel interfered with appellant’s litigation strategy with respect to the fee application. Further, plaintiff would have been greatly prejudiced if the withdrawal motion were granted in its entirety since lengthy proceedings on the fee matter had already been conducted at the time the motion was made. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 270, 667 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haymes-v-haymes-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack