Legal Opinion
George v. George
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 14, 1995PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion of Alderman and Alderman, the attorneys for defendant, to withdraw as defendant’s attorneys. To be entitled to terminate the relationship with a client, an attorney must make a showing of good or sufficient cause and reasonable notice (see, Catrone v Catrone, 92 AD2d 559; Isser v Berg, 38 Misc 2d 957; see also, Heinike Assocs. v Liberty Natl. Bank, 142 AD2d 929, 931; 6 NY Jur 2d, Attorneys at Law, §§ 54-55). The attorneys for defendant failed to make that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Isser v. BergNew York Supreme Court · 1963
- Haskell v. HaskellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Catrone v. CatroneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- J. M. Heinike Associates, Inc. v. Liberty National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Torres v. TorresAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
3Cited by11 opinions
- Palmieri v. BiggianiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Cashdan v. CashdanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Cianci v. ChaputSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2016
- Kiernan v. KiernanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.