From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cerqueira v. Clivilles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1995
213 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).


Defendants seek the disqualification of plaintiffs' attorney(s) based upon no more than the counterclaim of malicious prosecution that was asserted against him/them. However, "the advocate-witness disqualification rules contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide guidance, not binding authority, for courts in determining whether a party's law firm, at its adversary's instance, should be disqualified during litigation". (S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 440.) A civil litigant has a fundamental right to the legal counsel of choice (Lightning Park v. Wise Lerman Katz, 197 A.D.2d 52, 54), and we are not unmindful that disqualification motions are frequently used as a litigation tactic (Talvy v. American Red Cross, 205 A.D.2d 143, 149; Solow v Grace Co., 83 N.Y.2d 303, 310).

Absent a violation of an ethical precept, plaintiffs' right to the lawyer of their choice should not be abridged. While defendants do allege the existence of a conflict of interest between plaintiffs and their lawyers, something more than an affirmation by defendants' attorney, who has no personal knowledge of the facts and states only that counsel "will likely be necessary on the issues of actual malice and probable cause", is required to justify such a drastic action as disqualification of the opposing parties' lawyers.

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Cerqueira v. Clivilles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1995
213 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Cerqueira v. Clivilles

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD CERQUEIRA et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT CLIVILLES et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 580

Citing Cases

Muriel Siebert v. Intuit

I. The Appellate Division correctly overruled the IAS court's disqualification of defendant's counsel for…

Marine Midland Bank v. Koch

Disqualification of an attorney during litigation "implicates not only the ethics of the profession but also…