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
HOLDER OF SECOND MORTGAGE COULD PROPERLY SUE ONLY ON THE UNDERLYING DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.
CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM THE POLICE-KILLING OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD BOY AFTER HIS MOTHER CALLED 911 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE IN A KOREAN-LANGUAGE CHAT ROOM WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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...