In re the Estate of Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Porter

35 A.D.3d 477, 826 N.Y.S.2d 377

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 477 (In re the Estate of Porter) 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 Porter, 35 A.D.3d 477, 826 N.Y.S.2d 377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Fusco, S.), dated September 13, 2005, which denied their motion to disqualify the objectant’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

Disqualification of the objectant’s attorney for violation of the advocate-witness rule was properly denied in the absence of a showing that the testimony of the attorney would be necessary (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [22 NYCRR 1200.21]; S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446 [1987]). Nor was disqualification warranted under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (see 22 NYCRR 1200.35), as at the time the objectant’s attorney spoke to the petitioners they were not represented by counsel. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Fusco, S.), dated September 13, 2005, which denied their motion to disqualify the objectant’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

Disqualification of the objectant’s attorney for violation of the advocate-witness rule was properly denied in the absence of a showing that the testimony of the attorney would be necessary (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [22 NYCRR 1200.21]; S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446 [1987]). Nor was disqualification warranted under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (see 22 NYCRR 1200.35), as at the time the objectant’s attorney spoke to the petitioners they were not represented by counsel. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 477, 826 N.Y.S.2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-porter-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack