From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

East Forty-Fourth St. v. Bildirici

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

January 22, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 4, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff's attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


Disqualification for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 ( 22 NYCRR 1200.21), which requires withdrawal by counsel if it appears that he will be called as a witness, was properly denied in the absence of a showing that the testimony of plaintiff's attorney will be necessary to establish the claim or prejudicial in the event the attorney is called ( see Kirshon, Shron, Cornell Teitelbaum v Savarese, 182 AD2d 911).


Summaries of

East Forty-Fourth St. v. Bildirici

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

East Forty-Fourth St. v. Bildirici

Case Details

Full title:EAST FORTY-FOURTH STREET LLC, Respondent, v. YUSUF BILDIRICI, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2009

Citations

58 A.D.3d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
870 N.Y.S.2d 790

Citing Cases

Wu v. City of New York

A party seeking disqualification of an attorney and/or law firm must make a showing that the testimony of the…

Tofel Partners, P.C. v. Karan

However, disqualification of an attorney pursuant to DR 5-102 ( 22 NYCRR 1200.21) may be called for if it…