Legal Opinion
Lichtenstein v. Emerson
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1997PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Edward H. Lehner, J.
The issue most hotly contested before me was whether the *934claimed office of the nonresident attorney who appeared on the instant motion on behalf of the plaintiff, which office is located in the basement of a restaurant and bar in which the attorney has a proprietary interest, may be considered an "office for the transaction of law business” within the meaning of that term in section 470 of the Judiciary Law.
The complaint herein states, in the preamble: "Plaintiff * * * by his attorneys Barrymore & Loots, alleges”, and concludes in the typed portion:…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Supreme Court of NH v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hicklin v. OrbeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Supreme Court of Virginia v. FriedmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- In re GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 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
- Lichtenstein v. EmersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Neal v. Energy Transportation Group, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Schoenefeld v. New YorkDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2011