Moccia v. Weisfogel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moccia v. Weisfogel

253 A.D.2d 800, 677 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9576

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 800 (Moccia v. Weisfogel) 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

Moccia v. Weisfogel, 253 A.D.2d 800, 677 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated September 23, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to disqualify their attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[801]*801Since the defendants established the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship, and that the former and current representation are both adverse and substantially related, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in disqualifying the plaintiffs’ law firm from further representation of the plaintiffs (see, Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 308; Mondello v Mondello, 118 AD2d 549; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 101 AD2d 268). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated September 23, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to disqualify their attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[801]*801Since the defendants established the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship, and that the former and current representation are both adverse and substantially related, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in disqualifying the plaintiffs’ law firm from further representation of the plaintiffs (see, Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 308; Mondello v Mondello, 118 AD2d 549; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 101 AD2d 268). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 800, 677 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moccia-v-weisfogel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack