Legal Opinion

Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided February 16, 2007PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*12OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order, entered on or about March 1, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, and cross motion denied.

Defendant Blecher’s disqualification as counsel for defendant Bermont Holdings Ltd. under the advocate witness rule (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.21 (a)]) was unwarranted. Inasmuch as Blecher is one of two shareholders in Bermont, a limited liability corporation, and his interests appear to be identical to those of Bermont, his disqualification would have little or no effect upon the nature and extent of his participation in the action (see S & S…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. S & S Hotel Ventures Limited Partnership v. 777 S. H. Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Stuart v. WMHT Educational Telecommunications, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

4Cited by1 opinion

  1. Greenberg v. Grace Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API