From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1996
228 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

reversing a dismissal under Section 470 where a New Jersey law firm had “entered into a reciprocal satellite office sharing agreement with a firm located” in New York County

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. State

Opinion

June 20, 1996

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


"It is the policy of the State of New York to foster the availability of a wide range of professional services by lawyers qualified to render them" ( New York Criminal Civ. Cts. Bar Assn. v. Jacoby, 61 N.Y.2d 130, 136). To this end, residents of adjoining States may appear as attorneys in New York courts if they are duly admitted to the New York bar and if they maintain an "office for the transaction of law business * * * within the [S]tate [of New York]" (Judiciary Law § 470; see, Rosenshein v. Ernstoff, 176 A.D.2d 686).

At issue in the case at bar is whether plaintiffs counsel below satisfactorily demonstrated that his firm met the statute's criteria, specifically the requirement of the maintenance of an office in New York State. This, of course, is an inherently factual determination. Nonetheless, having afforded the IAS Court's determination the deference due, we conclude that plaintiff's counsel has adequately established compliance with Judiciary Law § 470. We note, inter alia, that the attorney who filed the summons and complaint on behalf of plaintiff was admitted to the Bar of this State, as were other members of the firm that employed him, and that, although the firm's principal place of business was in Hackensack, New Jersey, it had entered into a reciprocal satellite office sharing agreement with a firm located on lower Broadway in New York County. The terms of this agreement and other evidence clearly show that the firm maintained an office to engage in the "transaction of law business" in this State within the meaning of the statute.

Finally, the plaintiff's cross motion to amend the summons should have been granted, there being no prejudice to the defendants from the proposed amendment.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1996
228 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

reversing a dismissal under Section 470 where a New Jersey law firm had “entered into a reciprocal satellite office sharing agreement with a firm located” in New York County

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. State
Case details for

Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, New York, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KARA KEENAN, Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI ESTATE, NEW YORK, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 241

Citing Cases

In re Garrasi

Attorney Stein agreed, and continued to represent the petitioner over the next four years, or up until 2007.…

Serer v. Gorbrook Assocs. Inc.

Serers' Request for the Withdrawal of Defendant's Attorney HermanSerers also seek an order directing the law…