Legal Opinion

Perkins v. Elbilia

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

Decided December 20, 2011PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*544The motion court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for the pro hac vice admission of an out-of-state attorney to represent him. This State’s policy favors “representation by counsel of one’s own choosing” (Neal v Ecolab, Inc., 252 AD2d 716, 716 [1998] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). The motion was made within days after the commencement of the action; pro hac vice admission would not adversely affect judicial efficiency or the court’s control of its courtroom and calendar (see Giannotti v Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC, 20 AD3d 389 [2005]). Defendant’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Neal v. Ecolab, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  2. Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. PritchardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  2. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. PritchardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API