Igor Stolyar v. Dr. Leonard Hochstein, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-1146
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1146 Lower Tribunal No. 24-3930-CA-01 ________________

Igor Stolyar, Appellant,

vs.

Dr. Leonard Hochstein, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Barry S. Turner, P.A., and Barry S. Turner, for appellant.

Berkeley Law, P.A., and Lorne E. Berkeley (Cooper City), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 581 (Fla. 2014)

(“The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion. While the trial court’s discretion is limited by

the applicable legal principles, the appellate court will not substitute its

judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are

supported by competent substantial evidence.” (quotation omitted));

Comments, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.9 (“Matters are ‘substantially related’

for purposes of this rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute,

or if the current matter would involve the lawyer attacking work that the

lawyer performed for the former client.”); Gonzalez ex rel. Colonial Bank v.

Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting argument that

Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.7 required disqualification of

plaintiff’s counsel in shareholder derivative action on behalf of company

where same counsel also represented plaintiff individually in direct actions

against company); cf. FlexFunds Holdings, LLC v. Rivero, 341 So. 3d 478,

482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming disqualification of counsel in action

between shareholders where counsel previously represented both

organization and plaintiff shareholder and instant action involved both direct

and derivative claims).