Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid. P.C. v Duffy
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid. P.C. v Duffy 2012 NY Slip Op 33626(U) August 9, 2012 Nassau Dist Ct Docket Number: CV-000019-11 Judge: Fred J. Hirsh Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] DISTRICT COURT OF NASSAU COUNTY FIRST DISTRICT: CIVIL PART 3 LAZER, APTHEKER, ROSELLA &YEDID. P.C., Plaintiff, against INDEX NO. CV-000019-11 Present: Hon. Fred J. Hirsh JAMES P. DUFFY III, Defendant. DECISION AFTER TRIAL FACTS Plaintiff, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C. fLARY") is alaw firm. It sues to recover the balance due on a legal fee. James P. Duffy, III ("Duff/) is an attorney and aformer client of Duffy. On April 24, 2009, the Hon. William R. LaMarca issued an order in an action captioned We're Associates Company against James P. Duffy, Esq. ("We're Action) adjudging Duffy to be in criminal contempt. Justice LaMarca's order fined Duffy and directed his immediate arrest and incarceration for a period of one week.. Upon being served with acopy ofJustice LaMarca's order, Duffycontacted several law firms including LARY. Duffy wanted to make an application to vacate Justice LaMarca's order adjudging him to be in criminal contempt.. Justice LaMarca's orderthat adjudged Duffy to be in contemptwas granted without opposition. Duffy believed Justice LaMarca's contempt order should be vacated because the motion papers served by We're' Associate's attorney were mailed to Duffy at his wife's address and at the address of his old, dissolved lawfirm. Duffy claimed he did not receive mail at either address. He asserts the attorneys for We'reAssociates could have properly served him because he had provided them with his mailing address at a deposition conducted in supplementary proceedings in the We're Action. He also asserts the ยข1- [* 2] [* 3] [* 4] [* 5] [* 6] [* 7] [* 8]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
