Legal Opinion
Spilky v. Hirsch
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided February 19, 1980PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
Order entered July 10, 1979 (B. Cohen, J.) is affirmed, without costs.
The plaintiffs are attorneys acting pro se, who seek recovery from the defendant for legal services. The defendant has asserted a number of counterclaims against the plaintiffs, one of which, i.e., the fourth, seeks recovery for slander. Defendant’s fourth counterclaim alleges that the plaintiffs told defendant’s attorney, one Isaac Anolic, that the reason for their refusal to return certain corporate records to the defendant was because the defendant was not solvent.
The plaintiffs moved to disqualify…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- In re the Estate of WeinstockNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- RAV Realty Corp. v. Union Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
4Cited by4 opinions
- O'NEIL v. BerganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Estate of Re v. Kornstein Veisz & WexlerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Lankler Siffert & Wohl, LLP v. RossiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Dean v. Township of Bensalem, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1983