Press v. Lozier, Inc.

239 A.D.2d 879, 659 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6236
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 30, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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).

239 A.D.2d 879 (Press v. Lozier, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schertz v. Jenkins
4 Misc. 3d 298 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2004)
Sperr v. Gordon L. Seaman, Inc.
284 A.D.2d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
562 Eglinton, Inc. v. Merlo
277 A.D.2d 1027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)