Legal Opinion

Falk v. Chittenden

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

Decided December 12, 2006PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant’s attorney should be disqualified from representing the defendant in an employee disciplinary proceeding, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered April 18, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

*532Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This action arises out of a disciplinary proceeding commenced by the plaintiff Robert Falk, in his capacity as a lieutenant of the Rye City Police Department, against the defendant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. CareyNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Busino v. MeachemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. New York City School Construction AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Falk v. ChittendenNew York Court of Appeals · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API