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
AUDIT TRAIL, I.E., METADATA SHOWING WHO ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS, WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE ACCESSED, AND ANY CHANGES TO THE RECORDS, WAS DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT AFTER SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR AN OIL SPILL DID NOT MEET THE STRICT CRITERIA FOR AN EXCLUSION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Not Necessary Party in Malpractice Action Where Liability Vicarious
CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.
No Duty Owed by Agent to Client—Client Never Requested Type of Insurance At Issue
DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (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

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...