I. D. Robbins v. Ellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

I. D. Robbins v. Ellman

65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13098

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 519 (I. D. Robbins v. Ellman) 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

I. D. Robbins v. Ellman, 65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 5, 1978, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion disqualifying the law firm of Colman & Liner from appearing on behalf of more than one defendant group, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and cross motion denied, without costs and without disbursements. The conclusory affidavits submitted by plaintiffs’ attorney at this early stage in the proceedings fail to establish that the "director” and "tenant” groups have divided, adverse and conflicting interests in defending this action. Therefore, the law firm of Colman & Liner should not have been disqualified from representing those defendant groups. (Lewis v Palestine, 50 AD2d 752.) Should the facts, as later developed in this action, show a conflict of interest on the part of that law firm, plaintiffs may, if so advised, renew their request for disqualification. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Yesawich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 5, 1978, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion disqualifying the law firm of Colman & Liner from appearing on behalf of more than one defendant group, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and cross motion denied, without costs and without disbursements. The conclusory affidavits submitted by plaintiffs’ attorney at this early stage in the proceedings fail to establish that the "director” and "tenant” groups have divided, adverse and conflicting interests in defending this action. Therefore, the law firm of Colman & Liner should not have been disqualified from representing those defendant groups. (Lewis v Palestine, 50 AD2d 752.) Should the facts, as later developed in this action, show a conflict of interest on the part of that law firm, plaintiffs may, if so advised, renew their request for disqualification. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Yesawich and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-d-robbins-v-ellman-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack