General

Harold D'O. Baker et al., Respondents, v. William R. Kohler et al., Defendants, and Paul Mishkin et al., Appellants

300 A.D.2d 135751 N.Y.S.2d 472·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2002·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Harold D’O. Baker et al., Respondents, v William R. Kohler et al., Defendants, and Paul Mishkin et al., Appellants. [ 751 NYS2d 472 ] [MAJORITY] —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant Paul Mishkin from appearing as counsel on behalf of appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Inasmuch as defendant Mishkin, an attorney, has already been called as a witness at trial and is likely to testify again, he was properly precluded from undertaking, in midtrial, to represent appellants by the expedient of having himself designated “of counsel” to the law firm acting as appellants’ counsel (see Feygin v Martell, 283 AD2d 304, 305; Zweig v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 125 AD2d 205, 206-207; see also Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 318). Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.