Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.
This text of 15 Misc. 3d 11 (Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[12]*12OPINION OF THE COURT
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 Misc. 3d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omansky-v-bermont-holdings-ltd-nyappterm-2007.