Jamil v. Davis Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jamil v. Davis Building Corp.

166 A.D.2d 415, 561 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11842

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 415 (Jamil v. Davis Building Corp.) 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

Jamil v. Davis Building Corp., 166 A.D.2d 415, 561 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, nonparty Lehrman, Kronick & Lehrman, the attorney for the plaintiffs, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charde, J.), entered May 8, 1990, which denied its motion to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, where the trial testimony was completed and all that remained was the submission of legal memoranda to the court, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appel[416]*416lant’s motion to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiffs. However, this decision does not prejudice the appellant’s right to renew this motion after the court has rendered its determination in the action. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, nonparty Lehrman, Kronick & Lehrman, the attorney for the plaintiffs, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charde, J.), entered May 8, 1990, which denied its motion to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, where the trial testimony was completed and all that remained was the submission of legal memoranda to the court, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appel[416]*416lant’s motion to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiffs. However, this decision does not prejudice the appellant’s right to renew this motion after the court has rendered its determination in the action. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 415, 561 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamil-v-davis-building-corp-nyappdiv-1990.