From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mediaceja v. Davidov

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 30, 2014
119 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-07-30

Magdeleydis MEDIACEJA, respondent, v. Adi DAVIDOV, et al., defendants-appellants; Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, nonparty-appellant.

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and Robert M. Ortiz of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se and for defendants-appellants. Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael T. Altman of counsel), for respondent.


Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and Robert M. Ortiz of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se and for defendants-appellants. Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael T. Altman of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants and the nonparty law firm, Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated March 18, 2013, which granted the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the nonparty law firm from representing the defendants in this action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the nonparty law firm, Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, from representing the defendants in this action is denied.

A party's right to be represented “by counsel of its choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted” ( Zutler v. Drivershield Corp., 15 A.D.3d 397, 397, 790 N.Y.S.2d 485;S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 443, 515 N.Y.S.2d 735, 508 N.E.2d 647;Dominguez v. Community Health Plan of Suffolk, 284 A.D.2d 294, 294, 725 N.Y.S.2d 377). A party seeking to disqualify an attorney or a law firm for an opposing party on the ground of conflict of interest has the burden of demonstrating (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 ( see Tekni–Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 131, 651 N.Y.S.2d 954, 674 N.E.2d 663;Solow v. Grace & Co., 83 N.Y.2d 303, 308, 610 N.Y.S.2d 128, 632 N.E.2d 437;Sessa v. Parrotta, 116 A.D.3d 1029, 1029, 985 N.Y.S.2d 128;Gabel v. Gabel, 101 A.D.3d 676, 955 N.Y.S.2d 171;see also Falk v. Gallo, 73 A.D.3d 685, 901 N.Y.S.2d 99). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the defendants' attorneys because of an alleged conflict of interest, since the plaintiff failed to establish any of the three foregoing elements. MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mediaceja v. Davidov

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 30, 2014
119 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Mediaceja v. Davidov

Case Details

Full title:Magdeleydis MEDIACEJA, respondent, v. Adi DAVIDOV, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 30, 2014

Citations

119 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 5521
989 N.Y.S.2d 892

Citing Cases

Grech v. HRC Corp.

By Supplemental Notice dated March 23, 2015, defendants demanded that plaintiff's counsel provide a copy of…

Wiederman v. Halpert

"The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the court" (…