Michelle Laventure & Michael Laventure v Scott A. Rosenberg & Heller & Rosenberg, P.C. Martin Katzman
Motion No: 2006-01323 NC
Slip Opinion No: 2007 NYSlipOp 64425(U)
Decided on March 2, 2007
Appellate Term, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and LIPPMAN, JJ.

NO. 2006-1021 N C
NO. 2006-1323 N C
Motion by appellant Katzman to consolidate appeals numbered 2006-1021 N C and 2006-1323 N C is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers.
NO. 2006-1021 N C
NO. 2006-1323 N C
MICHELLE LAVENTURE and MICHAEL LAVENTURE,

Respondents,

-against-

SCOTT A. ROSENBERG and HELLER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
MARTIN KATZMAN,

Defendants,
-and-

ELIZABETH RYAN, HIRSCH & KALLMAN, P.C.,
STANLEY HIRSCH & MARC KALLMAN,
Appellants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MICHELLE LAVENTURE and MICHAEL LAVENTURE,

Respondents,

-against-

SCOTT A. ROSENBERG and HELLER & ROSENBERG, P.C.,
ELIZABETH RYAN, HIRSCH & KALLMAN, P.C.,
STANLEY HIRSCH & MARC KALLMAN,
Defendants,
-and-

MARTIN KATZMAN,

Appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION


RE:MICHELLE LAVENTURE and MICHAEL LAVENTURE v
SCOTT A. ROSENBERG and HELLER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
and MARTIN KATZMAN and ELIZABETH RYAN and
HIRSCH & KALLMAN, P.C. and STANLEY HIRSCH & MARC KALLMAN


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MICHELLE LAVENTURE and MICHAEL LAVENTURE v
SCOTT A. ROSENBERG and HELLER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
and ELIZABETH RYAN and HIRSCH & KALLMAN, P.C.
and STANLEY HIRSCH & MARC KALLMAN and MARTIN KATZMAN

Absent is a sworn, notarized affidavit by movant in support of the motion. An attorney who is a party to an action does not enjoy the privilege of utilizing an affirmation (see CPLR 2106; Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 801 [1981]; LaRusso v Katz, 30 AD3d 240, 243 [2006]; Schutzer v Suss-Kolyer, 57 AD2d 613 [1977]).