Legal Opinion
Phillips v. Cahill Gordon & Reindel
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 11, 1981PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Arthur E. Blyn, J.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) for failure to state a cause of action is granted.
Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: first, that defendant’s appearance as counsel in a third-party action violated CPLR 321 and deceived this court; the second, that as a large law firm (over 162 lawyers) appearing as counsel for defendants in third-party actions instigated by this same plaintiff pro se, defendants deprived plaintiff of equal protection of the laws. Plaintiff seeks damages of $100,000 and vacatur of all…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity v. New York Times Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNew York Supreme Court · 1942
- Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1980
- Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gracey v. MaddinCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1989
- Gracey v. MaddinCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1989