Herrington v. Herrington, 435 N.E.2d 405 (N.Y. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Herrington v. Herrington, 435 N.E.2d 405 (N.Y. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pennise v. Pennise, 120 Misc. 2d 782 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983)
How cited ↗
Cited for
56 N.Y.2d at 582 Meyer, J., and Jasen, J., concurring2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Pennise v. Pennise, 120 Misc. 2d 782 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983).published
    (Meyer, J., and Jasen, J., concurring)
  • Pippis v. Pippis, 69 A.D.3d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    “Moreover, evidence that one attorney ostensibly represented both parties to a settlement agreement raises an ‘inference of overreaching on the part of the party who is the prime beneficiary of the assistance of the attorney’ ” (Tuccillo v…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bertha M. Herrington, Appellant,
v.
Paul N. Herrington, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 30, 1982.
Published opinion
435 N.E.2d 405
1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3257
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Gerard Quinn for appellant., James J. Tarantino, Jr., for respondent.
Jasen and Meyer.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (81 AD2d 679).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg. Judges Jasen and Meyer concur in result in a concurring memorandum.

Concurrence

Jasen and Meyer, JJ.

(concurring). While we concur in the result we do so only because the papers before the court contain nothing to support the statement made in appellant’s brief that appellant wife was represented at the time the separation agreement was negotiated by the attorney now representing the respondent husband. If in fact he represented both husband and wife, the case may well be one to which Christian v Christian (42 NY2d 63) would apply. As the Appellate Division, Second Department, stated in Bartlett v Bartlett (84 AD2d 800), “in such a situation, an inference of overreaching on the part of the party who is the prime beneficiary of the assistance of the attorney may be drawn”. On the record before the court that issue cannot be reached.

Order affirmed, etc.