Glashow v. Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glashow v. Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 257, 732 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 257 (Glashow v. Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc.) 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

Glashow v. Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 257, 732 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered February 20, 2001, which denied their motion to disqualify counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel. The defendants failed to establish that counsel had access to confidential information related to the case, or that the matters involved in the former representation and the current litigation were substantially related (see, Spano v Tawfik, 271 AD2d 522; Kuberzig v Advanced Dermatology, 260 AD2d 548). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Cozier, 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 malicious prosecution, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered February 20, 2001, which denied their motion to disqualify counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel. The defendants failed to establish that counsel had access to confidential information related to the case, or that the matters involved in the former representation and the current litigation were substantially related (see, Spano v Tawfik, 271 AD2d 522; Kuberzig v Advanced Dermatology, 260 AD2d 548). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 257, 732 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glashow-v-linden-towers-cooperative-4-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack