Centennial Insurance v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Centennial Insurance v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc.

60 A.D.3d 506, 875 N.Y.S.2d 466

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J), entered November 5, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ cross motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ cross motion, since defendant Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc. had executed a written waiver in its retainer agreement with the same law firm specifically waiving any conflict of interest that might arise from the firm’s representation of Centennial and Apple. Apple cannot compel the disqualification of plaintiffs counsel simply because the representation to which it consented has since devolved into litigation (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 7 AD3d 83, 92 [2004]). Apple’s claim that it did not understand the implications of the waiver is unsupported by the clear language of the retainer agreement and the record evidence. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J), entered November 5, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ cross motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ cross motion, since defendant Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc. had executed a written waiver in its retainer agreement with the same law firm specifically waiving any conflict of interest that might arise from the firm’s representation of Centennial and Apple. Apple cannot compel the disqualification of plaintiffs counsel simply because the representation to which it consented has since devolved into litigation (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 7 AD3d 83, 92 [2004]). Apple’s claim that it did not understand the implications of the waiver is unsupported by the clear language of the retainer agreement and the record evidence. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Centennial Insurance v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 506, 875 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

60 A.D.3d 506 (Centennial Insurance v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related