Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman

55 A.D.3d 348, 864 N.Y.S.2d 421

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 3, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs law firm, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In order to disqualify the firm representing plaintiff in this breach of contract action, defendant had to demonstrate an attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiff’s principal, and the existence of a conflict of interest between plaintiff and its principal in connection with the matter being litigated (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 [22 NYCRR 1200.24]). Defendant’s evidence, consisting of a hearsay internet report, an informal e-mail and a breakfast meeting, was insufficient to establish any separate attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiffs principal (see Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30573(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 3, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs law firm, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In order to disqualify the firm representing plaintiff in this breach of contract action, defendant had to demonstrate an attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiff’s principal, and the existence of a conflict of interest between plaintiff and its principal in connection with the matter being litigated (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 [22 NYCRR 1200.24]). Defendant’s evidence, consisting of a hearsay internet report, an informal e-mail and a breakfast meeting, was insufficient to establish any separate attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiffs principal (see Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30573(U).]

Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 55 A.D.3d 348, 864 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

55 A.D.3d 348 (Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related