Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, New York, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
"It is the policy of the State of New York to foster the availability of a wide range of professional services by lawyers qualified to render them” (New York Criminal & Civ. Cts. Bar Assn. v Jacoby, 61 NY2d 130, 136). To this end, residents of adjoining States may appear as attorneys in New York courts if they are *331duly admitted to the New York bar and if they maintain an "office for the transaction of law business *• * * within the [S]tate [of New York]” (Judiciary Law § 470; see, Rosenshein v Ernstoff, 176 AD2d 686).
At issue in the case at bar is whether plaintiffs counsel below…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- New York Criminal & Civil Courts Bar Ass'n v. JacobyNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Rosenshein v. ErnstoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
3Cited by6 opinions
- Schoenefeld v. State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- In re HaasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Lichtenstein v. EmersonNew York Supreme Court · 1997
- Kelley v. SchneckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- In re the Estate of GarrasiNew York Surrogate's Court · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.