Opinion
October 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion is granted.
It is well established that an appearance of impropriety exists when an attorney-client relationship currently exists in an unrelated case between a panelist and a party or attorney appearing before the medical malpractice panel (see, Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 A.D.2d 577, 580; De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 A.D.2d 766; Gierke v Woodworth, 124 A.D.2d 987). The question of whether a prior attorney-client relationship gives rise to an appearance of impropriety must rest upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Some relevant factors to consider include the length of the period of time which has elapsed since the prior representation, the present relationship of the parties, and the similarity between the types of actions (see, Gierke v Woodworth, supra; Virgo v Bonavilla, 71 A.D.2d 1051, affd 49 N.Y.2d 982; Kletnieks v Brookhaven Mem. Assn., 53 A.D.2d 169; King v Retz, 115 Misc.2d 836). Applying these factors to the case at bar, we find that the plaintiff's motion should have been granted. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.