Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re the Estate of Burdick

In re the Estate of Burdick

283 A.D.2d 920, 723 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 920 (In re the Estate of Burdick) 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
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).

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

Related

Emile v. Big Bros./Big Sisters of New York City, Inc.
292 A.D.2d 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D.2d 920, 723 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-burdick-nyappdiv-2001.