1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 47 A.D.3d
  5. 47 A.D.3d 1006 (2008)
 

PATENAUDE v. EMPIRE CONTRACTING AND SALES COMPANY, INC.

47 A.D.3d 1006 (2008)

847 N.Y.S.2d 872

WAYNE J. PATENAUDE, Respondent, v. EMPIRE CONTRACTING AND SALES COMPANY, INC., Appellant, and MITCHELL JUNEAU, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided January 3, 2008.

Lahtinen, J.

We affirm. As Supreme Court noted in its well-reasoned opinion, the record contains no proof that the client of the withdrawing attorney was provided notice of the subject motion (see CPLR 321 [b] [2]; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [a] [2] [22 NYCRR 1200.15 (a) (2)]; Birky v Katsilogiannis, 37 A.D.3d 631, 632 [2007]; Matter of Kindra B.,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases