Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Martin

224 A.D.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 697

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 597 (Martin v. Martin) 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

Martin v. Martin, 224 A.D.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 19, 1994, which denied his motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidentiy exercise its discretion in denying, after a hearing, the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney. The record establishes that the plaintiff’s attorney never represented the defendant and the defendant never communicated any confidential information to the plaintiff’s attorney (cf., Leisman v Leisman, 208 AD2d 688; Burton v Burton, 139 AD2d 554; Mondello v Mondello, 118 AD2d 549; Pulichino v Pulichino, 108 AD2d 803). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Plorio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 19, 1994, which denied his motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidentiy exercise its discretion in denying, after a hearing, the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney. The record establishes that the plaintiff’s attorney never represented the defendant and the defendant never communicated any confidential information to the plaintiff’s attorney (cf., Leisman v Leisman, 208 AD2d 688; Burton v Burton, 139 AD2d 554; Mondello v Mondello, 118 AD2d 549; Pulichino v Pulichino, 108 AD2d 803). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Plorio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack