Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zagari v. Zagari

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

Decided June 14, 2002Published

1Dissent

Hayes and Scudder, JJ.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. Disqualification of an attorney or a law firm “may be required only when it is likely that the testimony to be given by the witness is necessary” (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 445-446). “Testimony may be relevant and even highly useful but still not strictly necessary. A finding of necessity takes into account such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence” (id. at 446; see Burdett Radiology Consultants v Samaritan Hosp., 158 AD2d…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. S & S Hotel Ventures Limited Partnership v. 777 S. H. Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Ezrasons, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Burdett Radiology Consultants, P. C. v. Samaritan HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  4. Broadwhite Associates v. TruongAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  5. Martinez v. SuozziAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API