Yalkowsky v. Napolitano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yalkowsky v. Napolitano

94 A.D.2d 683, 463 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18100

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

DecidedMay 24, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 683 (Yalkowsky v. Napolitano) 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

Yalkowsky v. Napolitano, 94 A.D.2d 683, 463 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— So much of this appeal as is from that part of the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rettinger, J.), entered December 28, 1982, as directed plaintiff to serve an amended complaint separately stating and numbering his causes of action is dismissed as nonappealable, as of right, and the order is otherwise affirmed, with costs. In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s cross motion to disqualify J. Henry Neale, Jr., as attorney for certain defendants, we do so on the ground that the motion is premature on the state of the record and without prejudice to an appropriate application to the Supreme Court should facts appear which would warrant such disqualification. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Fein, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

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

— So much of this appeal as is from that part of the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rettinger, J.), entered December 28, 1982, as directed plaintiff to serve an amended complaint separately stating and numbering his causes of action is dismissed as nonappealable, as of right, and the order is otherwise affirmed, with costs. In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s cross motion to disqualify J. Henry Neale, Jr., as attorney for certain defendants, we do so on the ground that the motion is premature on the state of the record and without prejudice to an appropriate application to the Supreme Court should facts appear which would warrant such disqualification. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Fein, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 683, 463 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yalkowsky-v-napolitano-nyappdiv-1983.