Fleigelman v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleigelman v. Eli Lilly & Co.

255 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 613

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 151 (Fleigelman v. Eli Lilly & 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

Fleigelman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 255 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1998, which, in actions for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to DES, granted the motion of defendant-respondent Eli Lilly & Co. to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the 12-attorney law firm representing plaintiffs, where defendant’s former attorney of seven years’ duration is still employed (cf., Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 313), failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it adopted safeguards adequate to assure against the likelihood that defendant’s confidences would be divulged (compare, Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 243 AD2d 191, lv granted 253 AD2d 1004). There are no issues of fact requiring a hearing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1998, which, in actions for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to DES, granted the motion of defendant-respondent Eli Lilly & Co. to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the 12-attorney law firm representing plaintiffs, where defendant’s former attorney of seven years’ duration is still employed (cf., Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 313), failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it adopted safeguards adequate to assure against the likelihood that defendant’s confidences would be divulged (compare, Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 243 AD2d 191, lv granted 253 AD2d 1004). There are no issues of fact requiring a hearing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleigelman-v-eli-lilly-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack