Kern, Suslow Securities, Inc. v. Baytree Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kern, Suslow Securities, Inc. v. Baytree Associates, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 74, 671 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 74 (Kern, Suslow Securities, Inc. v. Baytree Associates, 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

Kern, Suslow Securities, Inc. v. Baytree Associates, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 74, 671 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about October 9, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs attorneys to the extent of prohibiting plaintiff from using certain information about defendant’s principal as long as plaintiff continues to be represented by its current attorneys, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of permitting plaintiff to use the subject information only if it retains new attorneys and the court is satisfied that plaintiff and its new attorneys obtained the information independently and not from plaintiffs current attorneys, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a prior relationship between its principal and plaintiffs attorneys in the present action that involved, among other things, a written agreement by the attorneys not to disclose certain information about defendant’s principal in exchange for the principal’s cooperation in a prior unrelated action that the attorneys were then prosecuting on behalf of other unrelated clients. Any attempt by plaintiffs attorneys to use such information, which they had expressly agreed in writing not to disclose in order to foster a prior relationship of cooperation with defendant’s principal, sufficiently implicates the ethical concerns underly[75]*75ing the preservation of client confidences and secrets (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101 [B] [22 NYCRR 1200.19 (b)]; DR 5-108 [A] [2] [22 NYCRR 1200.27 (a) (2)]) to warrant the sort of measured prohibition imposed by the motion court. We are also persuaded that defendant moved expeditiously once plaintiffs attorneys revealed their intention to use the subject information. However, the court’s ruling that plaintiff could use the subject information, regardless of how it was obtained, were it to retain new attorneys fails to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and should be further qualified to require a showing that plaintiff and any new attorneys it hires obtained the information from sources independent of plaintiffs current attorneys (cf., CPLR 3103 [c]). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about October 9, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs attorneys to the extent of prohibiting plaintiff from using certain information about defendant’s principal as long as plaintiff continues to be represented by its current attorneys, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of permitting plaintiff to use the subject information only if it retains new attorneys and the court is satisfied that plaintiff and its new attorneys obtained the information independently and not from plaintiffs current attorneys, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a prior relationship between its principal and plaintiffs attorneys in the present action that involved, among other things, a written agreement by the attorneys not to disclose certain information about defendant’s principal in exchange for the principal’s cooperation in a prior unrelated action that the attorneys were then prosecuting on behalf of other unrelated clients. Any attempt by plaintiffs attorneys to use such information, which they had expressly agreed in writing not to disclose in order to foster a prior relationship of cooperation with defendant’s principal, sufficiently implicates the ethical concerns underly[75]*75ing the preservation of client confidences and secrets (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101 [B] [22 NYCRR 1200.19 (b)]; DR 5-108 [A] [2] [22 NYCRR 1200.27 (a) (2)]) to warrant the sort of measured prohibition imposed by the motion court. We are also persuaded that defendant moved expeditiously once plaintiffs attorneys revealed their intention to use the subject information. However, the court’s ruling that plaintiff could use the subject information, regardless of how it was obtained, were it to retain new attorneys fails to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and should be further qualified to require a showing that plaintiff and any new attorneys it hires obtained the information from sources independent of plaintiffs current attorneys (cf., CPLR 3103 [c]). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 74, 671 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kern-suslow-securities-inc-v-baytree-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1998.