ESTATE OF CARMEN MARTIN, Deceased

ESTATE OF CARMEN MARTIN, Deceased (2748/A/12) — Prior to the return date of an SCPA 1411 citation, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts and who was admitted pro hac vice to appear in this contested probate proceeding (see Matter of Martin, NYLJ, May 15, 2013, at 24, col 5 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2013]) served and filed a "motion" for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for medical records and a separate "motion" to compel an answer to interrogatories on the underlying petitioner and the respondent noticed for the SCPA 1411 citation return date. At the time of their initial filing and service, neither of the purported motions were in proper form (see CPLR 2214 [a]), and both bore only the name of the attorney admitted pro hac vice, without the name of the New York attorney with whom, previously, he indicated he is associated (see Matter of Martin, NYLJ, May 15, 2013, at 24, col 5 supra). The court is now in receipt of another motion, with a return date of October 3, 2013, bearing only the name of the pro hac vice attorney.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ESTATE OF CARMEN MARTIN, Deceased (2748/A/12) — Prior to the return date of an SCPA 1411 citation, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts and who was admitted pro hac vice to appear in this contested probate proceeding (see Matter of Martin, NYLJ, May 15, 2013, at 24, col 5 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2013]) served and filed a “motion” for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for medical records and a separate “motion” to compel an answer to interrogatories on the underlying petitioner and the respondent noticed for the SCPA 1411 citation return date. At the time of their initial filing and service, neither of the purported motions were in proper form (see CPLR 2214 [a]), and both bore only the name of the attorney admitted pro hac vice, without the name of the New York attorney with whom, previously, he indicated he is associated (see Matter of Martin, NYLJ, May 15, 2013, at 24, col 5 supra). The court is now in receipt of another motion, with a return date of October 3, 2013, bearing only the name of the pro hac vice attorney.

An attorney admitted pro hac vice in the discretion of the court is precluded from participating in pretrial or trial proceedings “unless he or she is associated with an attorney who is a member in good standing of the New York bar, who shall be the attorney of record in the matter” (Rules of Ct of Appeals 22 NYCRR §520.11 [c]). From this point forward, the attorney admitted pro hac vice shall not serve and file papers in his name only without the name of the attorney of record in New York appearing on such filings. Accordingly, the recently filed motion with a return date of October 3, 2013 is dismissed, without prejudice, as inappropriately filed.

ESTATE OF CARMEN MARTIN, Deceased

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal