Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v. Longmire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v. Longmire

82 A.D.3d 586, 920 N.Y.2d 23

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff law firm demonstrated that defendant’s counsel played a vital role in the final settlement negotiations flowing from a settlement offer that plaintiff had allegedly previously procured and that defendant client later accepted, that the negotiations were an important part of the underlying dispute, that defendant’s counsel was likely to be a key witness at trial, and that his proposed testimony would be adverse to his client’s interests (see Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacher, 299 AD2d 64, 75-76 [2002]; Martinez v Suozzi, 186 AD2d 378 [1992]).

While plaintiff improperly submitted the affirmation, rather than affidavit, of a partner (see CPLR 2106), under the circum[587]*587stances, “this defect was merely a technical procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the defendant” (see Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408, 409 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1989]; see CPLR 2001). Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Plaintiff law firm demonstrated that defendant’s counsel played a vital role in the final settlement negotiations flowing from a settlement offer that plaintiff had allegedly previously procured and that defendant client later accepted, that the negotiations were an important part of the underlying dispute, that defendant’s counsel was likely to be a key witness at trial, and that his proposed testimony would be adverse to his client’s interests (see Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacher, 299 AD2d 64, 75-76 [2002]; Martinez v Suozzi, 186 AD2d 378 [1992]).

While plaintiff improperly submitted the affirmation, rather than affidavit, of a partner (see CPLR 2106), under the circum[587]*587stances, “this defect was merely a technical procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the defendant” (see Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408, 409 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1989]; see CPLR 2001). Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v. Longmire, 82 A.D.3d 586, 920 N.Y.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 586 (Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v. Longmire) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related