Lewis v. Palestine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Palestine

50 A.D.2d 752, 376 N.Y.S.2d 160

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 752 (Lewis v. Palestine) 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

Lewis v. Palestine, 50 A.D.2d 752, 376 N.Y.S.2d 160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 31, 1975, denying appellants’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorney of record, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order entered on May 14, 1975 is unanimously dismissed. Respondents shall recover of appellants one bill of $40 costs and disbursements of these appeals. The affidavits submitted at Special Term fail to disclose any sufficient reason to warrant the removal of the subject attorney. Appellants’ claims that said attorney represents divided, adverse or conflicting interests and that his presence in this litigation threatens his confidential relationship with them, [753]*753have not been factually established. The appeal from the earlier order is dismissed as it was superseded by the later order of Special Term granting reargument and adhering to the court’s prior determination. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 31, 1975, denying appellants’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorney of record, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order entered on May 14, 1975 is unanimously dismissed. Respondents shall recover of appellants one bill of $40 costs and disbursements of these appeals. The affidavits submitted at Special Term fail to disclose any sufficient reason to warrant the removal of the subject attorney. Appellants’ claims that said attorney represents divided, adverse or conflicting interests and that his presence in this litigation threatens his confidential relationship with them, [753]*753have not been factually established. The appeal from the earlier order is dismissed as it was superseded by the later order of Special Term granting reargument and adhering to the court’s prior determination. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 752, 376 N.Y.S.2d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-palestine-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack