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