Mintz v. Mintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mintz v. Mintz

261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4754

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 455 (Mintz v. Mintz) 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

Mintz v. Mintz, 261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated December 2, 1998, which denied his motion to disqualify Kenneth Koopersmith, Esq., and the law firm of Koopersmith & Brown, L. L. P., from representing the plaintiff in the instant action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs attorney (see generally, Olmoz v Town of Fishkill, 258 AD2d 447; Juergens v Schanman, 182 AD2d 740). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, 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 (Kohn, J.), dated December 2, 1998, which denied his motion to disqualify Kenneth Koopersmith, Esq., and the law firm of Koopersmith & Brown, L. L. P., from representing the plaintiff in the instant action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs attorney (see generally, Olmoz v Town of Fishkill, 258 AD2d 447; Juergens v Schanman, 182 AD2d 740). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mintz-v-mintz-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack