Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.

15 Misc. 3d 11
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 16, 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[12] OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered on or about March 1, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, and cross motion denied.

Defendant Blecher’s disqualification as counsel for defendant Bermont Holdings Ltd. under the advocate witness rule (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.21 (a)]) was unwarranted. Inasmuch as Blecher is one of two shareholders in Bermont, a limited liability corporation, and his interests appear to be identical to those of Bermont, his disqualification would have little or no effect upon the nature and extent of his participation in the action (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 440 [1987]; Stuart v WMHT Educ. Telecom,., 195 AD2d 918 [1993]).

McKeon, PJ., Davis and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd., 15 Misc. 3d 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

15 Misc. 3d 11 (Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Global Horizon Funding LLC v. Prestige Trucking Global LLC
81 Misc. 3d 1228 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Greenberg v. Grace Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.
2019 NY Slip Op 5390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)