Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Omansky v. Bermont Holdings Ltd.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 16, 2007

15 Misc. 3d 11

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Tedd Blecher, New York City, appellant pro se, and for Bermont Holdings Ltd., appellant. Lawrence A. Omansky, New York City, respondent pro se.

Opinion of the Court

*12OPINION OF THE COURT

Per 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 Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 440 [1987]; Stuart v WMHT Educ. Telecom,., 195 AD2d 918 [1993]).

McKeon, PJ., Davis and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.