Lipton v. Lipton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipton v. Lipton

158 A.D.2d 450, 551 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 450 (Lipton v. Lipton) 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

Lipton v. Lipton, 158 A.D.2d 450, 551 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[452]*452The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing held at the direction of this court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest requires that the plaintiff’s attorney be disqualified, and that the affected provisions of the judgment of divorce procured while that attorney was representing the plaintiff be reversed (see, Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288; Nemet v Nemet, 112 AD2d 359). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

[452]*452The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing held at the direction of this court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest requires that the plaintiff’s attorney be disqualified, and that the affected provisions of the judgment of divorce procured while that attorney was representing the plaintiff be reversed (see, Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288; Nemet v Nemet, 112 AD2d 359). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 450, 551 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipton-v-lipton-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack