You are here: / / IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT...
, ,

IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR’S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petitioner hospital's motion to disqualify an attorney. The underlying matter concerned a revocable trust related to a charitable gift to the hospital in the amount of $75 million. The oncologist, Williams, who treated the man who made the gift hired a law firm to represent him in the trust proceedings. A lawyer at the firm, Glassman, was on the hospital's board of trustees. The complaint … alleges … that the hospital and its executives are harassing Williams and trying to terminate his relationship with the hospital in order to take control of the gift in violation of the terms of the trust:

… [W]hile Glassman's status as member of the hospital's Board of Trustees did not constitute a traditional attorney-client relationship, there existed “sufficient aspects of such relationship”—notably the fiduciary duty owed by Glassman to the hospital—to trigger inquiry into the potential conflict arising from Fox Rothschild's simultaneous representation of Williams in litigation against the hospital … . Moreover, the hospital established that Glassman, as a member of the hospital's Board of Trustees, had access to confidential information regarding the gift and the ongoing dispute with Williams, both before and after this proceeding was commenced … . Matter of Blackman, 2018 NY Slip Op 06528, Second Dept 10-3-18

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)
NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT APPLY TO A SEARCH DONE BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE IN QUEENS; STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH, AS WELL AS THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH, PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, APPOINTED A RECEIVER BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION TO EXCLUDE A MEMBER OF THE NATION FROM A PARCEL OF NATION LAND (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.
Objections Based Upon Lack of Due Execution and Lack of Testamentary Capacity Properly Dismissed/Relevant Criteria Explained
THE RULING OF THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER RE: A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK MUST BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, NOT SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (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

A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT... LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT...