Legal Opinion

Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, New York, Inc.

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

Decided June 20, 1996PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. New York Criminal & Civil Courts Bar Ass'n v. JacobyNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Rosenshein v. ErnstoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schoenefeld v. State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
  2. In re HaasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. Lichtenstein v. EmersonNew York Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Kelley v. SchneckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  5. In re the Estate of GarrasiNew York Surrogate's Court · 2010

1 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