USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Associates, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 1508, 147 A.D.3d 697, 48 N.Y.S.3d 134

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2017

Docket305816/13 3243N 3242N

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1508 (USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Associates, 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

USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Associates, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 1508, 147 A.D.3d 697, 48 N.Y.S.3d 134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel and to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from paper, same court and Justice, dated August 14, 2015, declining to sign an order to show cause, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiff’s counsel employed as a paralegal a non-admitted law school graduate who had previously worked for the executor of the estate of defendant’s former sole shareholder. These circumstances raise the question whether the paralegal possesses confidential information the disclosure of which could be detrimental to defendant (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.6). Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to identify the confidential information that the paralegal obtained. However, the record demonstrates that, in his former position, the paralegal worked on matters directly related to this litigation, and gained considerable knowledge of defendant’s affairs (see Hernandez v Paoli, 255 AD2d 130 [1st Dept 1998]), and that plaintiff’s counsel did not properly “screen” *698 him (NY St Bar Assn Comm on Prof Ethics Op 774 [2004]; see Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v Circle M. Beverage Barn, 129 AD2d 678 [2d Dept 1987]). The question whether there is a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification (Matter of Strasser, 129 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2015]; Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, N.Y. Branch, 90 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2011]).

No appeal lies from a writing declining to sign an order to show cause (Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech., 91 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel and to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from paper, same court and Justice, dated August 14, 2015, declining to sign an order to show cause, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiff’s counsel employed as a paralegal a non-admitted law school graduate who had previously worked for the executor of the estate of defendant’s former sole shareholder. These circumstances raise the question whether the paralegal possesses confidential information the disclosure of which could be detrimental to defendant (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.6). Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to identify the confidential information that the paralegal obtained. However, the record demonstrates that, in his former position, the paralegal worked on matters directly related to this litigation, and gained considerable knowledge of defendant’s affairs (see Hernandez v Paoli, 255 AD2d 130 [1st Dept 1998]), and that plaintiff’s counsel did not properly “screen” *698 him (NY St Bar Assn Comm on Prof Ethics Op 774 [2004]; see Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v Circle M. Beverage Barn, 129 AD2d 678 [2d Dept 1987]). The question whether there is a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification (Matter of Strasser, 129 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2015]; Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, N.Y. Branch, 90 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2011]).

No appeal lies from a writing declining to sign an order to show cause (Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech., 91 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1508, 147 A.D.3d 697, 48 N.Y.S.3d 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usa-recycling-inc-v-baldwin-endico-realty-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack