From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. N.Y. State Off. of Parks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 30, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

CA 03-02257.

Decided April 30, 2004.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one document) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered March 12, 2003. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion in part, dismissed certain causes of action and denied plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify the Attorney General from representing defendant.

C. KENNETH FOIT, TONAWANDA (C. KENNETH FOIT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (EDWARD LINDNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted those parts of defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the first four causes of action of the amended complaint. Plaintiff failed to commence a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a) within the requisite six months after dismissal of the original complaint without prejudice ( Clark v. New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation Historic Preserv., 288 A.D.2d 934). We note that plaintiff failed to comply with the statute despite the fact that the ability to comply was completely within his control ( see generally Vasquez v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 272 A.D.2d 275, 276).

The court also properly denied the cross motion of plaintiff seeking to disqualify the Attorney General from representing defendant. In support of the cross motion, plaintiff contended that the Attorney General had a conflict of interest because plaintiff testified at a deposition in an unrelated matter while he was defendant's employee. "The party seeking to disqualify an attorney or law firm must establish that there was a prior attorney-client relationship and that the former and current representations are both adverse and substantially related" ( Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Tonawanda Assessor, 236 A.D.2d 783, 783; see Solow v. Grace Co., 83 N.Y.2d 303, 308). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff established that there was a prior attorney-client relationship, we conclude that he failed to establish that the two representations are either adverse or substantially related. Plaintiff does not contend that the Attorney General's office acquired confidential information during the prior unrelated matter and, "under the circumstances, `there is no realistic possibility that confidences were disclosed' that would be relevant to the current litigation" ( Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 236 A.D.2d at 784).


Summaries of

Clark v. N.Y. State Off. of Parks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 30, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Clark v. N.Y. State Off. of Parks

Case Details

Full title:DAVID A. CLARK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS…

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 742

Citing Cases

Clark v. New York State Off. of Parks

Decided September 2, 2004. Appeal from the 4th Dept: 6 AD3d 1200. Motion for leave to appeal/appeals…