You are here: / / DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING...

DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS ACTION WHICH INCLUDED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant (Feinsliver) , an attorney, should not have been disqualified from representing himself in an action which included a cause of action against the attorney for legal malpractice:

​

… [T]he plaintiff commenced this action against Feinsilver and other entities related to Feinsilver. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, fraud, and legal malpractice. The defendants interposed various counterclaims.

… [T]he plaintiff moved to disqualify Feinsilver and his law firm, The Feinsilver Law Group, from representing the defendants in this action. … Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the motion with respect to Feinsilver himself, disqualifying him from representing any of the defendants, including himself. …

An attorney, like any other litigant, has the right, both constitutional… and statutory … to self-representation. Although the right is not absolute, any restriction on it must be carefully scrutinized … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any compelling reason why Feinsilver should not be allowed to represent himself in this action … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in disqualifying Feinsilver from representing himself in this action … . Herczl v Feinsilver, 2017 NY Slip Op 06528, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

 

ATTORNEYS (DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS ACTION WHICH INCLUDED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS ACTION WHICH INCLUDED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION (ATTORNEYS, (DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS ACTION WHICH INCLUDED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Action Against Governmental Entity Barred by Public Policy
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​
SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT)
No Special Duty Owed by School District to Adult Employees
RE: A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, IF ALLEGATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVITS ARE CONTROVERTED, A HEARING MUST BE HELD; TO BASE A TEMPORARY-CUSTODY RULING ON CONTROVERTED ALLEGATIONS IS AN ERROR OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE... MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DE...