Winkfield v. Brand Name Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winkfield v. Brand Name Sales, Inc.

305 A.D.2d 1012, 758 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4673

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1012 (Winkfield v. Brand Name Sales, Inc.) 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

Winkfield v. Brand Name Sales, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 1012, 758 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered October 15, 2001, which granted Saperston & Day, P.C.’s application to withdraw as counsel for defendant Brand Names Sales, Inc. and denied the cross motion of Brand Names Sales, Inc. for an order compelling defendant Grosman Corporation to defend and indemnify it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.). We add only that, at this stage of the litigation, we do not address any possible future conflict of interest. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered October 15, 2001, which granted Saperston & Day, P.C.’s application to withdraw as counsel for defendant Brand Names Sales, Inc. and denied the cross motion of Brand Names Sales, Inc. for an order compelling defendant Grosman Corporation to defend and indemnify it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.). We add only that, at this stage of the litigation, we do not address any possible future conflict of interest. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1012, 758 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winkfield-v-brand-name-sales-inc-nyappdiv-2003.