Legal Opinion
Salomone v. Abramson
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 3, 2015PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.
Defendants Steven Abramson and Diane Plateis (collectively, movants) move (motion sequence 001) to disqualify plaintiffs counsel — the Lebowitz Law Office, LLC (LLO), Marc Lebowitz, Esq., who is its sole member, and Keith Getz (collectively, firm). Movants argue that Lebowitz and Getz are necessary witnesses, that their testimony will be prejudicial to their client, and that the firm’s continued representation violates Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 3.7, the advocate-witness rule (rule).
Plaintiff, Daniel Salomone, opposes.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- S & S Hotel Ventures Limited Partnership v. 777 S. H. Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
- City of New York v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Werking v. Amity Estates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras LLP v. LacherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Roslyn Union Free School District v. BarkanNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lyons v. LyonsNew York Supreme Court · 2015
- The Pike Company, Inc. v. Tri-Krete LimitedDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2025
- Yan C. Marine-Abreu v. Zbigniew Pauperowicz, Cowan Intermodal Group, LLC, and Cowan Systems, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026