Omansky v Bermont Holdings LTD

Omansky v Bermont Holdings Ltd. 2007 NY Slip Op 27062 [15 Misc 3d 11] Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication AT1 Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Monday, May 7, 2007

[*1] Lawrence A. Omansky, Respondent,
v
Bermont Holdings Ltd. et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, February 16, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Tedd Blecher, New York City, appellant pro se, and for Bermont Holdings Ltd., appellant. Lawrence A. Omansky, New York City, respondent pro se.

{**15 Misc 3d at 109} OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered on or about March 1, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, and cross motion denied.

Defendant Blecher's disqualification as counsel for defendant Bermont Holdings Ltd. under the advocate witness rule (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.21 (a)]) was unwarranted. Inasmuch as Blecher is one of two shareholders in Bermont, a limited liability corporation, and his interests appear to be identical to those of Bermont, his disqualification would have little or no effect upon the nature and extent of his participation in the action (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 440 [1987]; Stuart v WMHT Educ. Telecom., 195 AD2d 918 [1993]).

McKeon, P.J., Davis and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.