You are here: / / DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING ...

DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The Second Department determined the Brach defendants' motion to disqualify counsel for the plaintiff limited-liability-company (Goldberg) was properly denied. Plaintiff sued defendant Brach, a member of the company, alleging Brach violated his duties to the company. After more than two years and eight months of litigation, the Brach defendants moved to disqualify Goldberg, alleging a conflict of interest. The Brach defendants were aware of the alleged conflict from the beginning. Therefore the Brach defendants had waived any objection to Goldberg's representation. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Where a party seeks to disqualify counsel of an adversary in the context of ongoing litigation, courts consider when the challenged interests became materially adverse to determine if the party could have moved at an earlier time” … . If the party moving for disqualification knew or should have known of the facts underlying the alleged conflict of interest for a prolonged period before bringing the motion, that party may be found to have waived any objection to the other party's representation … . Further, where a motion to disqualify is brought in the middle of litigation where the moving party was aware of the alleged conflict of interest well before bringing the motion, it can be inferred that the motion was made to secure a tactical advantage … . Ike & Sam's Group, LLC v Brach, 2016 NY Slip Op 02620, 2nd Dept 4-6-16


You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).
THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO A MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION VACATED; UNPRESERVED ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE BANK LACKED STANDING IN HIS ANSWER AND DID NOT OPPOSE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STANDING ISSUE AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING... UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CAN NOT RECOVER UNDER HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT OR IN...