From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frias v. Frias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 20, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Imperato, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs payable by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's cross motion is denied.

We find that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing that if counsel for the defendant Maria Frias is called as a witness by the plaintiff, his testimony will or may be prejudicial to his client (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [B]; Ocean-Clear, Inc. v Continental Cas. Co., 94 A.D.2d 717, 719). As noted by the court, whether counsel's projected testimony would be prejudicial to his client is "the subject of speculation". Accordingly, the plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify counsel should have been denied. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Frias v. Frias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Frias v. Frias

Case Details

Full title:MARTA FRIAS, Respondent, v. JOSE FRIAS et al., Defendants, and MARIA…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 652

Citing Cases

Zutler v. Drivershield Corp.

The challenging party carries the burden of demonstrating necessity ( id. at 445). The plaintiff's motion to…

Valloni v. Crisona

In any event, we find that the pleading was sufficient. The defendants' further claim that the complaint did…