Wirth v. Krawitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wirth v. Krawitz

79 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 538 (Wirth v. Krawitz) 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

Wirth v. Krawitz, 79 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to disqualify third-party defendants as counsel for plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[539]*539Defendants met their burden of demonstrating that William Greenberg’s testimony will be necessary to their third-party action (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443 [1987]) and that Greenberg’s dual role of advocate and witness will create the appearance of representing conflicting interests (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7 [b]; see generally Flores v Willard J. Price Assoc., LLC, 20 AD3d 343, 344 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31832(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to disqualify third-party defendants as counsel for plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[539]*539Defendants met their burden of demonstrating that William Greenberg’s testimony will be necessary to their third-party action (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443 [1987]) and that Greenberg’s dual role of advocate and witness will create the appearance of representing conflicting interests (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7 [b]; see generally Flores v Willard J. Price Assoc., LLC, 20 AD3d 343, 344 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31832(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wirth-v-krawitz-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack