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
SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE MARINA OWNER SERVED THE BOAT OWNER WITH A NOTICE OF SALE (FOR FAILURE TO PAY STORAGE FEES) BY MAIL; THE LIEN LAW REQUIRES AN INITIAL ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF SALE BEFORE RESORTING TO SERVICE BY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE BEFORE SELLING THE BOAT VIOLATED THE LIEN LAW; THE SALE OF THE BOAT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED CONVERSION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROVISION OF THE CORRECTION LAW WHICH REQUIRES AN OUT-OF-STATE SEX OFFENDER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” UPON RESIDING IN NEW YORK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OUT-OF-STATE OFFENSE WAS VIOLENT, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THIS DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT). ​
SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 2ND.
Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations

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

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...