Gangi v. Solgar Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gangi v. Solgar Co.

206 A.D.2d 503, 614 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7620

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 503 (Gangi v. Solgar 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

Gangi v. Solgar Co., 206 A.D.2d 503, 614 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud and duress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated March 22, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf, Schlissel & Sazer, P. C. from representing it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is apparent from the nature of the Meltzer firm’s actual involvement with the plaintiff Gangi, whereby they aided him in obtaining confidential documents and in some business negotiations, that there is a reasonable probability they acquired confidential or strategically valuable information that may be of use to the defendant (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 306; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295-296). The Meltzer firm is thus in the position of either compromising its zeal in order to avoid making use of information probably known to one of it present associates, or compromising the [504]*504confidences of that associate’s former client. It is such conflicts which the Code of Professional Responsibility is designed to avoid. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud and duress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated March 22, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf, Schlissel & Sazer, P. C. from representing it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is apparent from the nature of the Meltzer firm’s actual involvement with the plaintiff Gangi, whereby they aided him in obtaining confidential documents and in some business negotiations, that there is a reasonable probability they acquired confidential or strategically valuable information that may be of use to the defendant (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 306; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295-296). The Meltzer firm is thus in the position of either compromising its zeal in order to avoid making use of information probably known to one of it present associates, or compromising the [504]*504confidences of that associate’s former client. It is such conflicts which the Code of Professional Responsibility is designed to avoid. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 503, 614 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gangi-v-solgar-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack