Press v. Lozier, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Press v. Lozier, Inc.

239 A.D.2d 879, 659 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6236

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 879 (Press v. Lozier, 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

Press v. Lozier, Inc., 239 A.D.2d 879, 659 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the law firm representing plaintiffs should be disqualified from further representation of plaintiffs in this action against the Town of Brighton (Town) (see, Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295; Lasky v Talandis, 209 AD2d 841; Flaum v Birnbaum, 107 AD2d 1087). Attorney Rosenbaum’s prior representation of the Town as Deputy Town Attorney is substantially related to the Barclay Square development that is the subject matter of this negligence action. The fact that the lawyer did not obtain any confidential information in connection with that employment is not determinative. The Town is entitled to certainty that its interests will not be prejudiced from that employment (see, Cardinale v Golinello, supra, at 295-296). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Disqualify Law Firm.) Present—Pine, J. P., Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the law firm representing plaintiffs should be disqualified from further representation of plaintiffs in this action against the Town of Brighton (Town) (see, Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295; Lasky v Talandis, 209 AD2d 841; Flaum v Birnbaum, 107 AD2d 1087). Attorney Rosenbaum’s prior representation of the Town as Deputy Town Attorney is substantially related to the Barclay Square development that is the subject matter of this negligence action. The fact that the lawyer did not obtain any confidential information in connection with that employment is not determinative. The Town is entitled to certainty that its interests will not be prejudiced from that employment (see, Cardinale v Golinello, supra, at 295-296). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Disqualify Law Firm.) Present—Pine, J. P., Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 879, 659 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/press-v-lozier-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack