From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooklyn House of Hardware and Locks v. Fried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2004
9 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2004-02377.

July 12, 2004.

In an action to recover money due on a guarantee, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated March 9, 2004, which denied her motion to disqualify the firm of Lehman Duberman, LLP, from representing the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Before: Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


"Under DR 5-108 (A) (1), a party seeking disqualification of its adversary's lawyer must prove: (1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse" ( Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131). The movant in this case failed to establish the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between opposing counsel and herself. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to disqualify.


Summaries of

Brooklyn House of Hardware and Locks v. Fried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2004
9 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Brooklyn House of Hardware and Locks v. Fried

Case Details

Full title:BROOKLYN HOUSE OF HARDWARE AND LOCKS, INC., Respondent, v. JEANIE FRIED…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 2004

Citations

9 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
779 N.Y.S.2d 369

Citing Cases

Hoeffner v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

However, Hoeffner has not established that defendants' motion to disqualify should be denied on that ground.…