Miller v. Mei

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Mei

265 A.D.2d 168, 696 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 168 (Miller v. Mei) 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

Miller v. Mei, 265 A.D.2d 168, 696 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which, in a matrimonial proceeding, denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel for defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion for the disqualification of defendant’s counsel was properly denied. While the conduct upon which the motion is premised cannot be condoned, it was evidently isolated and, plaintiff’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, we perceive no ground to conclude that it will have sequelae detrimental to counsel’s representation of defendant in this matter (cf., Grunberg v Feller, 132 Misc 2d 738). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which, in a matrimonial proceeding, denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel for defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion for the disqualification of defendant’s counsel was properly denied. While the conduct upon which the motion is premised cannot be condoned, it was evidently isolated and, plaintiff’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, we perceive no ground to conclude that it will have sequelae detrimental to counsel’s representation of defendant in this matter (cf., Grunberg v Feller, 132 Misc 2d 738). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 168, 696 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mei-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack