1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 47 A.D.3d
  5. 47 A.D.3d 651 (2008)
 

BENTVENA v. EDELMAN

47 A.D.3d 651 (2008)

849 N.Y.S.2d 626

WILLIAM BENTVENA et al., Respondents, v. ETHEL EDELMAN et al., Defendants, and LEE EDELMAN, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. RICHARD GUMO, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

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

Decided January 15, 2008.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination whether or not disqualification of an attorney is warranted is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Disqualification is warranted if the attorney's testimony is necessary. The burden of demonstrating necessity falls upon the challenging party (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437

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