Case Name: William MARCO, as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff, v. John Foster DULLES et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Ridge Realization Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-06-22
Citations: 268 F.2d 192
Docket Number: No. 312, Docket 25543
Parties: William MARCO, as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff, v. John Foster DULLES et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Ridge Realization Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 268
Pages: 192–194

Head Matter:
William MARCO, as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff, v. John Foster DULLES et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Ridge Realization Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 312, Docket 25543.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 15, 1959.
Decided June 22, 1959.
Moore, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Fennelly, Eagan, Nager & Lage, New York City, Leo C. Fennelly, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, Milton Pollack, New York City, of counsel, for appellees.
Before SWAN, HINCKS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
Judge Bryan's opinion denying the motion is reported in 169 F.Supp. 622. In taking its appeal appellant relied upon Harmar Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2 Cir., 239 F.2d 555, rehearing denied 241 F.2d 937, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 824, 78 S.Ct. 31, 2 L.Ed.2d 38, as establishing that the order was appealable. Subsequent to taking its appeal the case of Fleischer v. Phillips, 2 Cir., 264 F.2d 515, certiorari denied Fleischer v. Benjamin, 359 U.S. 1002, 79 S.Ct. 1139, was decided by this court. That case demonstrates that an order denying a motion to disqualify attorneys is interlocutory and not appealable without compliance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b). Accordingly we are constrained to dismiss the appeal. So ordered.