Foley v. Foley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foley v. Foley

123 A.D.3d 973, 997 N.Y.S.2d 320

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2014

Docket2014-02388

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 973 (Foley v. Foley) 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

Foley v. Foley, 123 A.D.3d 973, 997 N.Y.S.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Santorelli, J.), dated November 19, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs motion to disqualify the defendant’s attorney from representing the defendant in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*974 The plaintiff met her burden of showing that counsel for the defendant and his law firm should be disqualified on the ground of a conflict of interest (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.7, 7.5; Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447, 452 [1979]; Faustini v Palladino, 280 AD2d 291, 293-294 [2001]), and because the defendant’s counsel is needed to testify as a witness in this action (see Fernandes v Jamron, 9 AD3d 379, 380 [2004]; Elizabeth St. v 217 Elizabeth St. Corp., 301 AD2d 481, 482 [2003]; Wensley & Partners v Polimeni, 262 AD2d 311, 311-312 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to disqualify the defendant’s attorney from representing the defendant in this action (see Fernandes v Jamron, 9 AD3d at 380; Wensley & Partners v Polimeni, 262 AD2d at 311-312; North Shore Neurosurgical Group v Leivy, 72 AD2d 598, 599 [1979]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Santorelli, J.), dated November 19, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs motion to disqualify the defendant’s attorney from representing the defendant in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*974 The plaintiff met her burden of showing that counsel for the defendant and his law firm should be disqualified on the ground of a conflict of interest (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.7, 7.5; Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447, 452 [1979]; Faustini v Palladino, 280 AD2d 291, 293-294 [2001]), and because the defendant’s counsel is needed to testify as a witness in this action (see Fernandes v Jamron, 9 AD3d 379, 380 [2004]; Elizabeth St. v 217 Elizabeth St. Corp., 301 AD2d 481, 482 [2003]; Wensley & Partners v Polimeni, 262 AD2d 311, 311-312 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to disqualify the defendant’s attorney from representing the defendant in this action (see Fernandes v Jamron, 9 AD3d at 380; Wensley & Partners v Polimeni, 262 AD2d at 311-312; North Shore Neurosurgical Group v Leivy, 72 AD2d 598, 599 [1979]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 973, 997 N.Y.S.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foley-v-foley-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack