You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM...

PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM PROPERLY GRANTED, AN ATTORNEY FROM THE FIRM RETAINED BY PLAINTIFF WORKED ON PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY JOINED THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s pro se motion to disqualify the law firm representing defendant (Ray, Mitiv) was properly granted. An attorney who worked for a law firm retained by plaintiff and who worked almost exclusively on plaintiff’s case left the firm retained by plaintiff and joined Ray, Mitev:

“A party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of that party must establish (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” … . “A party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his or her own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted, and the movant bears the burden on the motion”… . However, doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest are resolved in favor of disqualification in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety … .

Here, the plaintiff’s showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification … . Accordingly, based on the appearance of impropriety, disqualification was warranted … . Janczewski v Janczewski, 2019 NY Slip Op 01062, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S GARAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion
A FOIL REQUEST FOR A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) MEMO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO ANNUL A ZBA RULING; MATTER REMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT).
PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Adverse Interest Exception to In Pari Delicto Defense May Apply—The Two Concepts Are Briefly Explained
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE.
The Criteria for an Exception to the “Best Evidence Rule” for Admission of an Agreement, the Terms of Which Were In Dispute, Were Not Met—New Trial Ordered

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

LOCK BOX ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING ON WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK HIS HEAD WAS... PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST...