Annexstein v. Cotter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Annexstein v. Cotter

11 A.D.3d 416, 782 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 416 (Annexstein v. Cotter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Annexstein v. Cotter, 11 A.D.3d 416, 782 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain agreements are invalid, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated March 23, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was to disqualify Rosenberg Calica & Birney, LHP, as counsel for the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to disqualify Kenneth J. Weinstein as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying the plaintiffs’ co-counsel Kenneth J. Weinstein due to his representation of the defendant Gerald M. Cotter 14 years earlier (see Nationwide Assoc. v Targee St. Internal Medicine Group, 303 AD2d 728 [2003]). However, the plaintiffs sufficiently rebutted the presumption of shared confidences and disqualification with respect to the law firm Rosenberg Calica & Birney, LLP (see Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 93 [417]*417NY2d 611, 617 [1999]; Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain agreements are invalid, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated March 23, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was to disqualify Rosenberg Calica & Birney, LHP, as counsel for the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to disqualify Kenneth J. Weinstein as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying the plaintiffs’ co-counsel Kenneth J. Weinstein due to his representation of the defendant Gerald M. Cotter 14 years earlier (see Nationwide Assoc. v Targee St. Internal Medicine Group, 303 AD2d 728 [2003]). However, the plaintiffs sufficiently rebutted the presumption of shared confidences and disqualification with respect to the law firm Rosenberg Calica & Birney, LLP (see Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 93 [417]*417NY2d 611, 617 [1999]; Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 416, 782 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annexstein-v-cotter-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack