Cutner & Associates, P.C. v. Kanbar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutner & Associates, P.C. v. Kanbar

300 A.D.2d 157, 751 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 157 (Cutner & Associates, P.C. v. Kanbar) 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

Cutner & Associates, P.C. v. Kanbar, 300 A.D.2d 157, 751 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 9, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Shearer & Essner, LLP (S&E) as attorneys for defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion for disqualification of S&E as defendant’s counsel was properly denied. There was no showing of any attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and S&E (see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131) or that S&E received confidential information from plaintiff, substantially related to this action, under circumstances in which plaintiff had the right to believe that S&E, as attorneys, would respect such confidences (see e.g. Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 227 AD2d 301).

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Andrias, Buckley, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 9, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Shearer & Essner, LLP (S&E) as attorneys for defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion for disqualification of S&E as defendant’s counsel was properly denied. There was no showing of any attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and S&E (see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131) or that S&E received confidential information from plaintiff, substantially related to this action, under circumstances in which plaintiff had the right to believe that S&E, as attorneys, would respect such confidences (see e.g. Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 227 AD2d 301).

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Andrias, Buckley, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 157, 751 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutner-associates-pc-v-kanbar-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack