Home/New York Supreme Court/Park Lane Commercial Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Park Lane Commercial Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

50 Misc. 2d 231, 270 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1982
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 18, 1966·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion is denied. Defendants Travel Holiday Tours, Ltd., and Henry Fennell move for a protective order (CPLR 3103, subd. [a]), by their attorney, whose office [232] and post office address is in Jersey City, New Jersey. The question arises whether such representation is valid.

Section 470 of the Judiciary Law provides that a person regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor in the courts of record of this State whose office for the transaction of business is within the State may practice as such. Upon giving up his office here, he loses his right to practice (Matter of Fordan, 5 Misc 2d 372, and cases cited, pp. 374, 375). Control of its officers can only be maintained by the court with such a requirement. The merits of the motion are not reached.

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

Park Lane Commercial Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 50 Misc. 2d 231, 270 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1982 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

50 Misc. 2d 231 (Park Lane Commercial Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lichtenstein v. Emerson
171 Misc. 2d 933 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
White River Paper Co. v. Ashmont Tissue, Inc.
110 Misc. 2d 373 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1981)
Rosenberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
99 Misc. 2d 554 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
In re the Application of Tang
39 A.D.2d 357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)