Moccia v. Weisfogel

253 A.D.2d 800, 677 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9576
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 21, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] Since 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

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).

253 A.D.2d 800 (Moccia v. Weisfogel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Town of Oyster Bay v. 55 Motor Avenue Co.
109 A.D.3d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Astor Rhinebeck Associates, LLC v. Town of Rhinebeck
85 A.D.3d 1160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bloom v. St. Paul Travelers Companies
24 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)