You are here: / / MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCE...

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney should have been granted:

Plaintiff’s counsel represented defendant at the time that he commenced this action against defendant on plaintiff’s behalf. Thus, the conflict of interest arose at that time and must be assessed as of that time (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[a][1] …).

Although the matter in which plaintiff’s counsel represented defendant is unrelated to the instant matter, we find that counsel should be disqualified because “an attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” … . City & County Paving Corp. v Titan Concrete, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04776, First Dept 6-13-19

 

You might also like
ACTION TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST A DELAWARE DISSOLVED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION HAS NOT BEEN NULLIFIED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure of Freezer to Properly Cool Baked Goods Was an “Occurrence” (I.e., “Accident”) within the Meaning of the Commercial General Liability Policy
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE IDENTICAL CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW WERE DISMISSED IN FEDERAL COURT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).
NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED.

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

PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL... DEFENDANT DID NOT DENY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED GENERAL JURISDICTION...