You are here: / / MOTHER WAS AWARE OF THE GROUND FOR DISQUALIFYING FATHER’S ATTORNEY...
,

MOTHER WAS AWARE OF THE GROUND FOR DISQUALIFYING FATHER’S ATTORNEY FOR YEARS BEFORE THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY WAS MADE; MOTHER THEREBY WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO FATHER’S COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined mother’s motion to disqualify father’s attorney should not have been granted because mother was aware of the ground for the motion in 2019 and did not move to disqualify until 2022. She was deemed to have waived any objection to father’s attorney:

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the mother’s motion which was to disqualify the father’s attorneys on the basis that the father’s current wife, the children’s stepmother, works as a paralegal in the law office that employs the father’s attorneys. * * *

Where a party seeks to disqualify its adversary’s counsel 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 a party moving for disqualification was aware or should have been aware of the facts underlying an alleged conflict of interest for an extended period of time before bringing the motion, that party may be found to have waived any objection to the other party’s representation … . …

Here, the mother was aware of the employment of the father’s current wife at the law firm representing the father since 2019. Accordingly, the mother’s failure to move to disqualify the father’s attorneys until April 2022 constituted a waiver of her objection to the father’s legal representation … . In any event, the mother failed to demonstrate that the children will be prejudiced by the father being represented by his current attorneys. There is no evidence that during the course of her employment, the father’s current wife worked on the father’s case or that she otherwise communicated with the children about the case … . Matter of Marotta v Marotta, 2023 NY Slip Op 03694, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: If a party is aware of the ground for disqualification of the opposing party’s counsel but does not make a timely motion to disqualify (here years had passed), the moving party will be deemed to have waived any objection to opposing counsel.

 

You might also like
Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace
THE ESTATE OF THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED BEFORE HER DEATH AND THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SEEK A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS DID NOT REBUT THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF PROPER SERVICE AND MAILING OF THE SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1303 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE NORMAL JERKS AND JOLTS OF BUS TRAVEL AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENCE ON DEFENDANTS’ PART; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
County Could Not Avoid or Delay Payment of Property Tax Refund on Financial Hardship Grounds
Law of Contracts, Not Law of Torts, Applied to Conflict of Laws Analysis Concerning Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BECAUSE, BASED ON A LINE OF DUTY REPORT, THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE... DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE...