Legal Opinion
Lichtenstein v. Emerson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 9, 1998PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint by reason, inter alia, of the circumstance that plaintiffs attorney was not, when he commenced the action on plaintiffs behalf, authorized to practice in New York State, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs attorney, a resident of Washington, D.C., was properly found not to have satisfied the condition placed upon the practice of law in New York State by non-New York residents pursuant to Judiciary Law § 470, namely, that they maintain an “office…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals TribunalSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- McGee v. KormanNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Lichtenstein v. EmersonNew York Supreme Court · 1997
- Lunding v. Tax Appeals TribunalNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
3Cited by11 opinions
- Schoenefeld v. State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Elm Management Corp. v. SprungAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Ekaterina Schoenefeld v. State of New York, Eric T. SchneidermanNew York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP v. Ace American InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Neal v. Energy Transportation Group, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.