Shayne v. Podell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shayne v. Podell

166 A.D.2d 521, 560 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 521 (Shayne v. Podell) 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

Shayne v. Podell, 166 A.D.2d 521, 560 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered April 17, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Michael F. Erdheim as the defendant’s attorney on the ground that he is a necessary witness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of establishing that the disqualification of Michael F. Erdheim as the defendant’s attorney was proper (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [A]). It is axiomatic that the roles of advocate and witness are inherently inconsistent (see, S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 444). In the case at bar, given the likelihood that Erdheim will be called to give pertinent testimony at trial concerning the circumstances surrounding the alleged malpractice of the plaintiff law firm and his subsequent motion on behalf of the defendant, we conclude that it would be improper for him to continue in the capacity of the defendant’s attorney (see, Plotkin v Interco Dev. Corp., 137 AD2d 671; Catania v Lippman, 98 AD2d 826). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the determination of the trial court (cf., Frias v Frias, 155 AD2d 585). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered April 17, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Michael F. Erdheim as the defendant’s attorney on the ground that he is a necessary witness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of establishing that the disqualification of Michael F. Erdheim as the defendant’s attorney was proper (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [A]). It is axiomatic that the roles of advocate and witness are inherently inconsistent (see, S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 444). In the case at bar, given the likelihood that Erdheim will be called to give pertinent testimony at trial concerning the circumstances surrounding the alleged malpractice of the plaintiff law firm and his subsequent motion on behalf of the defendant, we conclude that it would be improper for him to continue in the capacity of the defendant’s attorney (see, Plotkin v Interco Dev. Corp., 137 AD2d 671; Catania v Lippman, 98 AD2d 826). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the determination of the trial court (cf., Frias v Frias, 155 AD2d 585). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 521, 560 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shayne-v-podell-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack