You are here: / / ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT...

ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel, D’Agostino, was required based on his hiring of an associate, Monteleon, who previously worked as a paralegal in the firm representing defendants. Even if Monteleon had not acquired client confidences, there existed the appearance of impropriety:

​

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motions to disqualify D’Agostino as the plaintiffs’ counsel in the instant actions. A party seeking to disqualify an attorney or a law firm for an opposing party on the ground of conflict of interest has the burden of demonstrating (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 … . When the moving party is able to demonstrate each of these factors, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification follows … . The defendants established that there is an irrebuttable presumption that Monteleon, who was a paralegal and subsequently D’Agostino’s associate, is subject to disqualification from representing the plaintiffs in these actions due to his prior employment.

Where one attorney is disqualified as a result of having acquired confidential client information in his former employment (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.9), there is a rebuttable presumption that the entirety of the attorney’s current firm must be disqualified … . … There is a rebuttable presumption here that D’Agostino, who employed Monteleon as a paralegal and subsequently an associate in his solo practice, is disqualified from representing the plaintiffs. That presumption has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs, as they failed to disprove that Monteleon had the opportunity to acquire confidential information in his former employment.  …

Even assuming that the irrebuttable presumption in favor of disqualification did not attach to Monteleon, disqualification of D’Agostino nonetheless is warranted. … Any doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification … . Moray v UFS Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08822, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/IMPROPRIETY, APPEARANCE OF (ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT).
RESTORATION OF AN ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AFTER FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE IS AUTOMATIC IF NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED AND NO ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAS BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO BRING A COMMON-LAW ACTION TO ENJOIN ZONING VIOLATIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY THE SAME COURT.
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THE 91-YEAR-OLD PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUOUS CARE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (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

EVEN WHERE AN INJURED WORKER SETTLES WITH A THIRD-PARTY BEFORE THE WORKERS’... COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT UNAUTHORIZED SURREPLIES (SECOND DEPT).