From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1993
194 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 10, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Disqualification of counsel rests in the sound discretion of the court, and here there has been no showing of abuse (see, Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp., 101 A.D.2d 268, 277). It cannot be said that the past matters and the instant matter are "completely unrelated" (Macro Cash Carry Corp. v. Berkman, 81 A.D.2d 783, 784).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1993
194 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Case Details

Full title:ABRAHAM HIRSCHFELD, Respondent, v. STANLEY STAHL, Individually and as…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 951

Citing Cases

Selim v. Castillo

It is well settled that "[d]isqualification of counsel rests in the sound discretion of the court."…

Neighborhood Chain v. Epic

"Disqualification of counsel rests in the sound discretion of the court" (citation omitted). (Hirschfeld v…