Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chemprene, Inc. v. X-Tyal International Corp.

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

Decided October 20, 1980Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLazer, J.

I dissent from the majority’s determination insofar as it grants defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to proceed in this lawsuit with a single attorney. While I do not believe that the cases cited by the majority stand for the binding and unremitting principle that a party to a lawsuit always is limited to a single attorney of record, if that indeed is their meaning and significance, I would conclude that the demands of a highly complex industrial and commercial society have outmoded the principle and that the instant circumstances demand its relaxation. To the facts, then. Chemprene,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jackson v. TrapierNew York Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Kitsch v. Riker Oil Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  3. In re the Judicial Settlement of Account of Proceedings of CallahanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1919
  4. In re the Estate of LockeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  5. Polytemp, Inc. v. SellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API