Summary
In Johnson v Mesch Eng'g (212 AD2d 970), the Fourth Department specifically declined to follow the Third Department rule and held that the pro hac vice admission rule "should be read to encompass admission for matters of trial preparation, including pretrial discovery".
Summary of this case from People v. LeslieOpinion
February 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to admit pro hac vice out-of-State attorneys associated with a Washington, D.C., law firm specializing in products liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims that had represented defendants for several years in other matters. The court also properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to prohibit those attorneys from participating in pretrial proceedings, including discovery. In our view, 22 NYCRR 520.9 (e) (1), which allows any court of record, at its discretion, to admit pro hac vice out-of-State attorneys "to participate in the trial or argument of any particular cause in which the attorney may be for the time being employed", should be read to encompass admission for matters of trial preparation, including pretrial discovery (see, 18 Intl. v. Interstate Express, 116 Misc.2d 66, 68). We decline to follow the holding of the Third Department in Largeteau v. Smith ( 197 A.D.2d 832).