Pulcini v. Vogt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pulcini v. Vogt

64 A.D.2d 781, 407 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12630

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 781 (Pulcini v. Vogt) 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

Pulcini v. Vogt, 64 A.D.2d 781, 407 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding commenced in this court pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review order of respondent Vogt, entered July 10, 1978, which disqualified attorney Stephen Herrick from further representation of petitioner, a witness, until final disposition of the criminal action in People v Keegan. Although it would appear that the subject order is of questionable validity in view of the informed consent to the representation arrangement by both petitioner and defendant Keegan (People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314), we are of the opinion that the error, if any, does not amount to a gross abuse of power requiring or permitting summary correction in a collateral proceeding (see, e.g., La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 580). The petition, therefore, must be dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding commenced in this court pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review order of respondent Vogt, entered July 10, 1978, which disqualified attorney Stephen Herrick from further representation of petitioner, a witness, until final disposition of the criminal action in People v Keegan. Although it would appear that the subject order is of questionable validity in view of the informed consent to the representation arrangement by both petitioner and defendant Keegan (People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314), we are of the opinion that the error, if any, does not amount to a gross abuse of power requiring or permitting summary correction in a collateral proceeding (see, e.g., La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 580). The petition, therefore, must be dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 781, 407 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulcini-v-vogt-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack