Opinion

Haberman v. Zoning Board of Appeals

  • 85 A.D.3d 915
  • 925 N.Y.S.2d 834
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Jun 14, 2011
Status
Published
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.9%

The opinion

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach dated December 29, 2003, which revoked a building permit previously issued to the petitioners/plaintiffs on August 12, 2003, and action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the petitioners/ plaintiffs are entitled to the building permit, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered February 1, 2010, which granted the motion of the *916 petitioners/plaintiffs to disqualify the firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, EC., as the respondents/defendants’ cocounsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify the firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, EC., as cocounsel for the respondents/defendants (see Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 93 NY2d 611 [1999]; Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]; M.A.C. Duff, Inc. v ASMAC, LLC, 61 AD3d 828 [2009]; Columbus Constr. Co., Inc. v Petrillo Bldrs. Supply Corp., 20 AD3d 383 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.