From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. Jaglom Prutzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 21, 1991
173 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 21, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).


Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.).

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.).

Plaintiffs' attack on counsel's participation in the special masters program was wholly unwarranted. There is no evidence that counsel participated as a special master in any litigation remotely related to the cases at bar. Such volunteer assistance to the court does not constitute a conflict of interest which might preclude practice before the same court.

There was insufficient "new" evidence to warrant amendment of the complaint, at this stage, especially in the absence of a copy of the proposed amended pleading. It is further noted that this court has already affirmed the dismissal of these actions on their merits, as well as affirming the injunction against further related litigation without leave of court ( 166 A.D.2d 386).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. Jaglom Prutzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 21, 1991
173 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Schwartz v. Jaglom Prutzman

Case Details

Full title:BART SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. STECHER JAGLOM PRUTZMAN et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 21, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 475