Thomas v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Douglas

2 A.D.2d 885, 157 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3731

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 885 (Thomas v. Douglas) 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

Thomas v. Douglas, 2 A.D.2d 885, 157 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

On the record before us, we cannot and we do not mean to fix or determine the rights of the parties in interest. Concededly, in December, 1955, the insurance company undertook to defend respondents in an action for personal injuries instituted against them by the plaintiff and retained appellants for that purpose. Appellants appeared, filed an answer, demanded a bill of particulars and conducted an examination before trial. On these facts, all that we hold is that Special Term properly denied the application of appellants — predicated on the cavalier conclusions and direction of the insurance company — to withdraw as attorneys for respondents. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

On the record before us, we cannot and we do not mean to fix or determine the rights of the parties in interest. Concededly, in December, 1955, the insurance company undertook to defend respondents in an action for personal injuries instituted against them by the plaintiff and retained appellants for that purpose. Appellants appeared, filed an answer, demanded a bill of particulars and conducted an examination before trial. On these facts, all that we hold is that Special Term properly denied the application of appellants — predicated on the cavalier conclusions and direction of the insurance company — to withdraw as attorneys for respondents. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 885, 157 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-douglas-nyappdiv-1956.