Levine v. Fine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Fine

67 A.D.2d 679, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 679 (Levine v. Fine) 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

Levine v. Fine, 67 A.D.2d 679, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendants Fine, Katzman and Weinstein from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 3, 1977, as disqualified attorney Leo Katzman from representing any of the parties to this litigation. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellants erroneously contend that there is no proper record upon which to base a review of the trial court’s determination disqualifying attorney Leo Katzman from representing any of the parties to the instant litigation. On the contrary, the facts upon which the trial court relied were set out at length in the record. In the circumstances presented, the court’s determination was not an abuse of discretion. Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendants Fine, Katzman and Weinstein from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 3, 1977, as disqualified attorney Leo Katzman from representing any of the parties to this litigation. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellants erroneously contend that there is no proper record upon which to base a review of the trial court’s determination disqualifying attorney Leo Katzman from representing any of the parties to the instant litigation. On the contrary, the facts upon which the trial court relied were set out at length in the record. In the circumstances presented, the court’s determination was not an abuse of discretion. Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 679, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-fine-nyappdiv-1979.