Legal Opinion
Spivak v. Sachs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 16, 1964PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSteuer, J.
The essential facts necessary for resolution of this ease are that defendant requested plaintiff, a lawyer admitted to practice in California but not in New York, to come here and render her what assistance he could in matrimonial litigation in which defendant was involved. Plaintiff correctly advised defendant that he would not be able to appear in any action and that the services he could perform would be limited to advice and consultation with the attorneys appearing for her. With complete understanding of the situation and under circumstances that clearly showed that it was contemplated…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. . AlfaniNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- In re New York County Lawyers Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- People v. WeilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
3Cited by5 opinions
- Nick C. Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corporation, Theatre & Cinema, Inc., Philhamboro, Inc., Youngstown Theatre Corporation and Modern Playhouses, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Spanos v. Skouras Theatres CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- United States v. Two Tracts of LandCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Nick C. Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corporation, Theatre & Cinema, Inc., Philhamboro, Inc., Youngstown Theatre Corporation and Modern Playhouses, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- United States v. Two Tracts Of Land In The Town Of BrookhavenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969