Edelson v. Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelson v. Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co.

262 A.D.2d 445, 691 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6653

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 445 (Edelson v. Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co.) 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

Edelson v. Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co., 262 A.D.2d 445, 691 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated August 27, 1998, which denied its motion to disqualify Lewis & Greer, P. C., as counsel for the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Under DR 5-108 (A) (1), a party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s lawyer must prove: (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” (Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131; Solow [446]*446v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 308). Satisfaction of all three criteria by the moving party gives rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification (Solow v Grace & Co., supra, at 309).

In this case, the defendant failed to establish that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related and that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to disqualify Lewis & Greer, P. C., as counsel for the plaintiff. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated August 27, 1998, which denied its motion to disqualify Lewis & Greer, P. C., as counsel for the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Under DR 5-108 (A) (1), a party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s lawyer must prove: (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” (Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131; Solow [446]*446v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 308). Satisfaction of all three criteria by the moving party gives rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification (Solow v Grace & Co., supra, at 309).

In this case, the defendant failed to establish that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related and that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to disqualify Lewis & Greer, P. C., as counsel for the plaintiff. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 445, 691 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelson-v-poughkeepsie-iron-metal-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack