Siroty v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siroty v. Nelson

200 A.D.2d 617, 606 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 380

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 617 (Siroty v. Nelson) 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

Siroty v. Nelson, 200 A.D.2d 617, 606 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In actions, inter alia, to determine liability for the loss of funds entrusted to a trustee, the Long Island Trust Company (now the Bank of New York) appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated July 12, 1993, which denied its motion to disqualify the law firm of Cusack & Stiles from representing United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Bank of New York contends that Cusack & Stiles should be disqualified as counsel for United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (hereinafter USF&G) because Cusack & Stiles was simultaneously representing the Bank of New York in Rosenberg v Bank of N. Y., pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 2065791, while prosecuting a claim on behalf of USF&G against the Bank of New York. We disagree.

Cusack & Stiles has met its burden of demonstrating the absence of any conflict in loyalties or impediments to a vigorous representation of each client (see, Aerojet Props. v State of New York, 138 AD2d 39). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In actions, inter alia, to determine liability for the loss of funds entrusted to a trustee, the Long Island Trust Company (now the Bank of New York) appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated July 12, 1993, which denied its motion to disqualify the law firm of Cusack & Stiles from representing United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Bank of New York contends that Cusack & Stiles should be disqualified as counsel for United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (hereinafter USF&G) because Cusack & Stiles was simultaneously representing the Bank of New York in Rosenberg v Bank of N. Y., pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 2065791, while prosecuting a claim on behalf of USF&G against the Bank of New York. We disagree.

Cusack & Stiles has met its burden of demonstrating the absence of any conflict in loyalties or impediments to a vigorous representation of each client (see, Aerojet Props. v State of New York, 138 AD2d 39). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 617, 606 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siroty-v-nelson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack