In re the Estate of Burdick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Burdick

283 A.D.2d 920, 723 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although Surrogate’s Court properly determined that respondents’ attorneys are disqualified, the court erred in determining that they are disqualified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.21). The proper subdivision pursuant to which they are disqualified is subdivision (c). We have examined respondents’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Surrogate’s Court, Ringrose, S. — EPTL.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although Surrogate’s Court properly determined that respondents’ attorneys are disqualified, the court erred in determining that they are disqualified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.21). The proper subdivision pursuant to which they are disqualified is subdivision (c). We have examined respondents’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Surrogate’s Court, Ringrose, S. — EPTL.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

In re the Estate of Burdick, 283 A.D.2d 920, 723 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 920 (In re the Estate of Burdick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related