From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Applehead Pictures v. Perelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 7, 2008
55 A.D.3d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

October 7, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 3, 2008, which denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs law firm, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.


In order to disqualify the firm representing plaintiff in this breach of contract action, defendant had to demonstrate an attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiffs principal, and the existence of a conflict of interest between plaintiff and its principal in connection with the matter being litigated ( see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105 [ 22 NYCRR 1200.24]). Defendant's evidence, consisting of a hearsay internet report, an informal e-mail and a breakfast meeting, was insufficient to establish any separate attorney-client relationship between the firm and plaintiffs principal ( see Solow v Grace Co., 83 NY2d 303).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them without merit.

[ See 2008 NY Slip Op 30573(U).]


Summaries of

Applehead Pictures v. Perelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 7, 2008
55 A.D.3d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Applehead Pictures v. Perelman

Case Details

Full title:APPLEHEAD PICTURES LLC, Respondent, v. RONALD O. PERELMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 7, 2008

Citations

55 A.D.3d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
864 N.Y.S.2d 421

Citing Cases

Radder v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Doing so necessarily affected the credibility of Pauley in his own personal injury action. "[A]ttorneys…

Int'l Publ'g Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli

Moreover, to the extent that the allegations were intended (as Vertalier and IPC suggest) to preserve some…