Feygin v. Martell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feygin v. Martell

283 A.D.2d 304, 724 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386

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

DecidedMay 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 304 (Feygin v. Martell) 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

Feygin v. Martell, 283 A.D.2d 304, 724 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 17, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of plaintiff and third-party defendants to disqualify defendant and third-party plaintiff’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the motion court’s conclusion that in prior litigation the plaintiff and defendant, represented by her present counsel, had a joint strategy or common interest in which they were both aligned against Neways Inc. This joint strategy or common interest created a type of attorney/client privilege between plaintiff and the attorney (see generally, People v Osorio, 75 NY2d 80, 85; Parisi v Leppard, 172 Misc 2d 951), and, in view of that circumstance, the attorney may not now represent defendant in this action, since this action is substantially related to the prior litigation in which the attorney in her capacity as an attorney became the recipient of plaintiff’s litigation-related confidences, and defendant’s interests herein are adverse to those of plaintiff (see, Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 313). Furthermore, given the issues in this case, involving a purported agreement between defendant and plaintiff to share in the settlement obtained in the prior litigation against Neways, it appears that the attorney may very well be called as a witness in the instant litigation. Thus, for this reason as well, she should not continue as counsel to defendant in this matter (see, Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 318-319; Zweig v Safeco Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 205, 206-207).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 17, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of plaintiff and third-party defendants to disqualify defendant and third-party plaintiff’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the motion court’s conclusion that in prior litigation the plaintiff and defendant, represented by her present counsel, had a joint strategy or common interest in which they were both aligned against Neways Inc. This joint strategy or common interest created a type of attorney/client privilege between plaintiff and the attorney (see generally, People v Osorio, 75 NY2d 80, 85; Parisi v Leppard, 172 Misc 2d 951), and, in view of that circumstance, the attorney may not now represent defendant in this action, since this action is substantially related to the prior litigation in which the attorney in her capacity as an attorney became the recipient of plaintiff’s litigation-related confidences, and defendant’s interests herein are adverse to those of plaintiff (see, Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 313). Furthermore, given the issues in this case, involving a purported agreement between defendant and plaintiff to share in the settlement obtained in the prior litigation against Neways, it appears that the attorney may very well be called as a witness in the instant litigation. Thus, for this reason as well, she should not continue as counsel to defendant in this matter (see, Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 318-319; Zweig v Safeco Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 205, 206-207).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 304, 724 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feygin-v-martell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack