Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.

193 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 398

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

DecidedMay 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 477 (Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.) 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

Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp., 193 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which denied petitioners’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the law firm representing respondents should not be disqualified, the firm having obtained Ellerbe Becket’s clearly informed consent to its simultaneous representation of Ellerbe Becket and respondents in two unrelated matters by different attorneys working out of different offices in different cities (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 [C] [22 NYCRR 1200.24 [c]; Unified Sewerage Agency v Jelco Inc., 646 F2d 1339). We also take note of the considerable time the firm has spent in representing respondents in comparison to the time spent in representing Ellerbe Becket. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which denied petitioners’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the law firm representing respondents should not be disqualified, the firm having obtained Ellerbe Becket’s clearly informed consent to its simultaneous representation of Ellerbe Becket and respondents in two unrelated matters by different attorneys working out of different offices in different cities (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 [C] [22 NYCRR 1200.24 [c]; Unified Sewerage Agency v Jelco Inc., 646 F2d 1339). We also take note of the considerable time the firm has spent in representing respondents in comparison to the time spent in representing Ellerbe Becket. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welton-becket-associates-v-lljv-development-corp-nyappdiv-1993.