McMahan Securities Co. v. Boyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McMahan Securities Co. v. Boyd

205 A.D.2d 362, 614 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219

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

DecidedJune 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 362 (McMahan Securities Co. v. Boyd) 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

McMahan Securities Co. v. Boyd, 205 A.D.2d 362, 614 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 6, 1993, which denied petitioners’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren ("Kelley”) as counsel for respondents in the pending arbitration proceeding before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While McMahan Securities was concededly a client of Kelley Drye & Warren in the past, said prior representation is not adverse or substantially related to the issues in the pending arbitration (see, Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295-296). Indeed, there is no credible evidence that Kelley’s representation of petitioners related to McMahan Securities’ restructuring or their amended partnership agreement—the issues before the NASD arbitration. The only attorney-client [363]*363relationship Kelley had in regard to the new partnership agreement was with respondent Boyd, not McMahan Securities.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 6, 1993, which denied petitioners’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren ("Kelley”) as counsel for respondents in the pending arbitration proceeding before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While McMahan Securities was concededly a client of Kelley Drye & Warren in the past, said prior representation is not adverse or substantially related to the issues in the pending arbitration (see, Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295-296). Indeed, there is no credible evidence that Kelley’s representation of petitioners related to McMahan Securities’ restructuring or their amended partnership agreement—the issues before the NASD arbitration. The only attorney-client [363]*363relationship Kelley had in regard to the new partnership agreement was with respondent Boyd, not McMahan Securities.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 362, 614 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmahan-securities-co-v-boyd-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack