You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses’ testimony firsthand …. .

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe … . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court … that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the small claims action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action between the same parties was a property dispute concerning a right-of-way. Although the small claims matter arose from the property dispute, pursuant to the permissive counterclaim rule, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The Third Department also determined the pretrial motion to dismiss the small claims matter should not have been granted, noting such a motion should rarely be entertained within the simplified small claims procedure:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Nevertheless, the permissive counterclaim rule operates to “save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action” so long as the second action is not based on “a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

A review of the record establishes that, although some of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that predate the first action and are connected to defendants’ attempts in the first action to assert their rights as property owners, the monetary relief that plaintiff now seeks is different than the relief he obtained in the first action and would in no way impair the rights established by the first action. Thus, we find that County Court’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising his negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in this action was clearly erroneous … . Accordingly, we conclude that “substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law” as to these claims … .

We also find that County Court erred in addressing the merits of defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss as it related to the malicious prosecution claim inasmuch as informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see UCCA 1804), and pretrial motions to dismiss should rarely be entertained … . In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to present his evidence at a hearing, we find that substantial justice will best be served by remittal to City Court for a prompt trial … . Rackowski v Araya, 2017 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/RES JUDICATA (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE (RES JUDICATA, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/SMALL CLAIMS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/DISMISS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO (SMALL CLAIMS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/COUNTERCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION CONCERNING THREE OF THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES.

The Third Department determined Family Court did not engage in an age-appropriate consultation concerning three of the children to determine their wishes in this “termination of parental rights” proceeding. The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Contrary to the argument by the attorney for the three younger children, the mere participation at the hearing and the giving of a closing statement, without more, by the attorney who represented Dawn, Summer and Samantha do not satisfy the age-appropriate consultation requirement of Family Ct Act § 1089 (d). The closing statement by the attorney for the three younger children was devoid of any statement indicating the preferences of Dawn, Summer or Samantha … .. Nor does the attorney for the three younger children point to any other evidence in the record that reflects their wishes. We are mindful that the court is ultimately guided by the best interests of the children … . The Legislature, however, has made it explicitly clear that a permanency hearing “shall” include an age-appropriate consultation … , carry significance and cannot be lightly overlooked. Given that the record does not disclose the wishes of Dawn, Summer or Samantha, the matter must be remitted so that Family Court may conduct the age-appropriate consultation under Family Ct Act § 1089 (d) with respect to these children. Matter of Dawn M. (Michael M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05282, 3rd Dept 6-29-17

 

,

JUDGE’S INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice trial, determined the judge’s response to jury questions was inadequate and improper. The judge did not respond at all to one question. And the judge’s response was different from the response discussed with counsel:

… [I]n addition to Supreme Court’s failure to respond in the manner it had discussed with counsel, the response given did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury. Indeed, the jury note requested “a clear explanation of ‘care and treatment,'” and also asked whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy? Or only the physical ‘care & tx’ given?” Importantly, the question of whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy?” was written by the jury as a stand alone question. The jury’s multiple questions clearly demonstrated that the jurors were confused as to whether, and in what manner, they were permitted to consider the alleged lack of documentation in determining whether defendant deviated from the standard of care. By failing to provide clarification on this point and by stating, matter-of-factly, that care and treatment included only the physical treatment and care given, Supreme Court precluded the jury from fairly considering a critical issue presented at trial … . Meyer v Saint Francis Hosp., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 05286, 3rd Dept 6-28-17

 

HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D.

The Third Department determined petitioner was properly found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while using a portable electronic device by the appeals board of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Petitioner was driving holding a GPS device:

​

We agree with the Appeals Board that a hand-held GPS device meets the statutory definition of a “portable electronic device” inasmuch as it is a “hand-held device with mobile data access” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d [2] [a]). In our view, it is mobile and receives data to calculate a driver’s geographical location and to communicate directions. Moreover, a review of the pertinent legislative history regarding Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d demonstrates that the Legislature intended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) to encompass any portable electronic device that diverts a driver’s attention away from the road and prevents the full use of a driver’s hands … . Thus, we are satisfied that the Appeals Board’s interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) as encompassing a hand-held GPS device was rational … .

We also agree that there is ample support for the Appeals Board’s determination that petitioner was using the GPS device. Petitioner concedes that, while he was driving, he was holding the device in his hand and “view[ing] the GPS navigation system to read directions.” Accordingly, we find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2017 NY Slip Op 05133, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)/GPS DEVICE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,  HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact in this medical malpractice action.  Plaintiff injured her shoulder when she caught a patient (Lisa Clark) who started to fall as she was being transferred from a sideboard to a physical therapy bed. The action was deemed to sound in medical malpractice:

​

The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is that initiating a slide board transfer of Clark with minimal to moderate assistance deviated from the applicable standard of care, thereby causing Clark’s fall and plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an expert affidavit from a physical therapist opining that utilizing a slide board transfer with minimal assistance did not deviate from the accepted standard of care and noting, based on a review of Clark’s records, that Clark had successfully completed slide board transfers with minimal or moderate assistance on prior occasions … . Thus, “the burden shifted to plaintiff to present expert medical opinion evidence that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care” … .

In opposition, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Matthew J. Nofziger. Even assuming that Nofziger was qualified to provide an opinion with respect to the standard of care used in the physical therapy field for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of transfer procedures … , we find his affidavit to be insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although Nofziger criticized the assessment of Clark’s physical and cognitive abilities prior to the slide board transfer, he failed to identify or define the applicable standard of care appropriate in this case, merely asserting, in a conclusory manner, that Clark required a higher level of assistance than was provided to her … . Nor did Nofziger set forth any particular actions or procedures that could have prevented Clark from falling, thereby failing to establish the requisite nexus between the alleged malpractice and plaintiff’s injury … . Therefore, even if considered, Nofziger’s affidavit was patently insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the transfer procedure used in this case deviated from the applicable standard of care … . Webb v Albany Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 05146, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, LAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO-CAUSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligent highway design action was properly no-caused after a non-jury trial. Claimant struck a disabled vehicle that was on the shoulder of the road. Claimant alleged the four-foot wide shoulder was too narrow. The state was entitled to qualified immunity for the highway design:

​

Defendant has a “duty to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition,” but “is afforded ‘a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision'” … . Qualified immunity does not attach where defendant’s “study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan,” however, and it falls on defendant to show that its actions resulted from a sufficiently deliberative process … .

Claimant cites various alleged deficiencies in the design of Route 7 relating to his assertion that the four-foot wide shoulder where the disabled vehicle was parked was too narrow. Route 7 is a four-lane freeway originally designed for traffic speeds of 70 miles per hour but, due to it being on a prolonged incline, a third “climbing lane” was added in the westbound direction to allow slow vehicles to make their way uphill without posing difficulties for other drivers. The credible proof at trial indicated that the shoulder width reflected the slower vehicles traveling in a climbing lane that was wide enough, in any case, to allow vehicles to pass a disabled vehicle on the shoulder. The record further reveals that the shoulder design was appropriate under the guidelines in place when the road was designed and built … . Inasmuch as the shoulder “that was installed met the relevant design standards in effect at the time of its construction,” the Court of Claims properly concluded that defendant cannot be held liable for that design … . Lake v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05142, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/HIGHWAY DESIGN (IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

,

CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a partial concurrence/dissent, determined the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) regulations placing caps on expenditure of state Medicaid funds for administrative costs and executive pay were properly promulgated. However, placing a cap on executive pay from all sources (called the “soft cap”) was deemed to exceed the Department of Health’s authority (disagreeing with the 2nd Department):

​

On balance, the Boreali factors weigh heavily in favor of DOH. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject regulations, to the extent that they place a limit on administrative costs and executive compensation paid for by state funds and state-authorized payments, do not violate the separation of powers doctrine… .

We reach a different conclusion, however, with regard to the soft cap provision … . The soft cap provision … restricts executive compensation paid from all sources except under certain circumstances. Absent a waiver, covered providers may not pay covered executives more than $199,000 from “any” sources of funding without incurring penalties unless (1) the amount of compensation is less than “the 75th percentile of that compensation provided to comparable executives in other providers of the same size and within the same program service sector and the same or comparable geographic area” based on a compensation survey recognized by the Division of the Budget, and (2) the amount has been reviewed and approved by the covered provider’s board of directors or equivalent governing body, and such review “include[d] an assessment of appropriate comparability data” … .

Applying the Boreali analysis, we part company with the [2nd] Department and find that … DOH exceeded its authority in adopting the soft cap portion of 10 NYCRR part 1002. First, by attempting to regulate executive compensation from all sources, DOH was acting on its own ideas of sound public policy. Relatedly, inasmuch as the soft cap provision ventures outside DOH’s legislative mandate to manage the efficient and effective use of taxpayer money for health care and related services, DOH was not engaged in mere interstitial rulemaking … . Finally, DOH has no special expertise in administering regulations governing the overall executive compensation or competence in regulating corporate governance as such. Matter of Leadingage N.Y., Inc. v Shah, 2017 NY Slip Op 05136, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

MEDICAID (CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)

WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department determined the determination should be annulled and expunged because a witness’s testimony was taken outside the inmate’s presence without his permission:

​

In disciplinary hearings, an inmate has a conditional right to call witnesses on his or her behalf and “[a]ny witness shall be allowed to testify at the hearing in the presence of the inmate unless the hearing officer determines that so doing will jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals” … . The regulation promulgated by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision requires that, prior to excluding a witness from testifying at the hearing, the Hearing Officer must “determine” that his or her presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals and inform the inmate of such reason … . Here, although petitioner conceded at the hearing that one inmate who was in the special housing unit could testify outside his presence, the Hearing Officer failed to set forth, either on the record or on the witness interview sheet, any reason for the other requested witness to testify outside petitioner’s presence. Furthermore, the record does not disclose, with regard to this witness, any reason that the presence of the inmate would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals … . As there was no adherence to the Department’s regulation, the determination must be annulled … . Furthermore, although petitioner was asked what questions he would pose to the requested witness and was permitted to hear the recorded testimony of that inmate, he repeatedly objected to the testimony of the inmate being taken outside his presence. As such, petitioner did not waive his right to receive a reason for the exclusion of that witness … . Matter of Kalwasinski v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05139, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly required defense counsel, who represented several defendants, to submit statements demonstrating the clients’ consent to joint representation (to address potential conflicts of interest):

​

With respect to defense counsel’s potential conflict of interest, we first note that defendants failed to preserve any objection that plaintiff lacked standing to raise the issue or failed to file her cross motion in a timely manner. Nor did Supreme Court err in ordering defense counsel to obtain the written statements. “[A] lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that . . . the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests” … . Notwithstanding such a conflict, a lawyer may still represent a client if “(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing” … . All Supreme Court’s order effectively does is assure compliance with this rule … . Considering the differing roles of each defendant, we conclude that Supreme Court prudently directed defense counsel to provide the client statements. Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05143, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION)

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