History
  • No items yet
midpage
82 A.D.3d 586
N.Y. App. Div.
2011

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP, Respondent, v Eric A. Longmire, Appellant.

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

920 NYS2d 23

Plaintiff law firm demonstrated that defendant‘s counsel played a vital role in the final settlement negotiations flowing from a settlement offer that plaintiff had allegedly previously procured and that defendant client later accepted, that the negotiations were an important part of the underlying dispute, that defendant‘s counsel was likely to be a key witness at trial, and that his proposed testimony would be adverse to his client‘s interests (see Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacher, 299 AD2d 64, 75-76 [2002]; Martinez v Suozzi, 186 AD2d 378 [1992]).

While plaintiff improperly submitted the affirmation, rather than affidavit, of a partner (see CPLR 2106), under the circumstances, “this defect was merely a technical procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the defendant” (see Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408, 409 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1989]; see CPLR 2001). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v. Longmire
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Mar 22, 2011
Citations: 82 A.D.3d 586; 920 N.Y.2d 23
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In