Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v. Ayrovainen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v. Ayrovainen

122 A.D.3d 908, 997 N.Y.S.2d 479

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2014

Docket2014-00329

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 908 (Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v. Ayrovainen) 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

Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v. Ayrovainen, 122 A.D.3d 908, 997 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover unpaid legal fees, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated January 9, 2014, as, sua sponte, disqualified attorney Barry Kantrowitz from representing the plaintiff in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly disqualified attorney Barry Kantrowitz from representing the plaintiff in this action, for the reasons stated in a companion appeal (see Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908 [2014] [decided herewith]). Further, it was a proper exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to disqualify Kantrowitz, sua sponte, based upon its finding in the related action involving the same parties (see Flushing Sav. Bank v FSB Props., 105 AD2d 829, 830 [1984]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover unpaid legal fees, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated January 9, 2014, as, sua sponte, disqualified attorney Barry Kantrowitz from representing the plaintiff in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly disqualified attorney Barry Kantrowitz from representing the plaintiff in this action, for the reasons stated in a companion appeal (see Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908 [2014] [decided herewith]). Further, it was a proper exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to disqualify Kantrowitz, sua sponte, based upon its finding in the related action involving the same parties (see Flushing Sav. Bank v FSB Props., 105 AD2d 829, 830 [1984]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 908, 997 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kantrowitz-goldhamer-graifman-pc-v-ayrovainen-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack