You are here: / / No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing...

No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Firms

The Second Department determined there was no basis for disqualifying a law firm which represented the plaintiffs in a personal injury case based upon the firm’s hiring of an attorney who had represented the defendant in the same case.  It was sufficiently demonstrated that the attorney had not acquired any client confidences during his representation of the defendant:

While generally, a party seeking to disqualify an opponent’s attorney “must prove: (1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse” …, “no presumption of disqualification will arise if either the moving party fails to make any showing of a risk that the attorney changing firms acquired any client confidences in [his or her] prior employment … or the nonmoving party disproves that the attorney had any opportunity to acquire confidential information in the former employment” … . Sharifi-Nistanak v Coccia, 2014 NY Slip Op 05318, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
Because the “Identity” of the Perpetrator Was Not an Issue, Allowing Evidence of Prior Crimes to Prove Identity Was Reversible Error.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL.
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT.
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD BEFORE DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION FOR IN-PERSON PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have a... Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Which Is Nearly Identical to a Summary Judgment...