Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v. Circle M. Beverage Barn, Inc.

129 A.D.2d 678, 514 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45366
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 678 (Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v. Circle M. Beverage Barn, 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
Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v. Circle M. Beverage Barn, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 678, 514 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action for the recovery of a past due balance under a sales contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [679]*679County (D’Amaro, J.), dated September 9, 1985, which denied its motion to disqualify defense counsel.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff sought disqualification of the defendants’ attorneys on the ground of conflict of interest in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The defendants’ attorneys had hired a paralegal who had previously been employed by the plaintiff’s counsel and had worked on the litigation pending between the parties and had interviewed the plaintiff’s manager concerning the facts of this case.

While the Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to nonlawyers, it does place a burden on attorneys to insure that their employees conduct themselves in accordance with the code (Code of Professional Responsibility, Preliminary Statement). The code has been adopted by this court to govern the conduct of attorneys within this department (see, 22 NYCRR 691.2).

Under the facts of this case disqualification of the defendants’ attorneys is proper (see, Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288; Letizia v Letizia, 117 AD2d 587; Poli v Gara, 117 AD2d 786). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Seal
9 Misc. 3d 239 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Owens v. First Family Financial Services, Inc.
379 F. Supp. 2d 840 (S.D. Mississippi, 2005)
Mulhern v. Calder
196 Misc. 2d 818 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Mahaska Bottling Co.
19 P.3d 784 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2001)
Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc.
751 So. 2d 196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Kassis v. Teacher's Insurance & Annuity Ass'n
243 A.D.2d 191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Cobb Publishing, Inc. v. Hearst Corp.
907 F. Supp. 1038 (E.D. Michigan, 1995)
Lyster v. Giancola
263 Ill. App. 3d 799 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1994)
In Re Estate of Divine
635 N.E.2d 581 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1994)
In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation
232 Cal. App. 3d 572 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Widger v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
232 Cal. App. 3d 572 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.2d 678, 514 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-bottled-gas-corp-v-circle-m-beverage-barn-inc-nyappdiv-1987.