From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Reilly v. Executone of Albany, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1987
135 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (McDermott, J.).


The instant appeal arises out of an action that was commenced by plaintiff to recover damages for alleged unlawful discrimination in employment consisting of sexual harassment and for claims of battery and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. At present, defendants in this action are the corporate employer, Executone of Albany, Inc., and two employees, Stanley Groggins and Michael J. Mahar. The law firm of Kohn, Bookstein Karp, P.C. (hereinafter the firm) originally appeared on behalf of Executone and the five individual defendants named in plaintiff's complaint. Following an order of Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint against all defendants except Executone, Groggins and Mahar, Groggins obtained separate counsel. Thereafter, perceiving a potential conflict of interest in continuing the joint representation of Executone and Mahar, the firm advised Mahar that he too should obtain separate counsel. When it appeared that Mahar did not intend to heed this advice, the firm applied to Supreme Court for an order permitting it to withdraw from representing Mahar. Although no one appeared in opposition to the motion, it was denied by Supreme Court. The firm now appeals.

Supreme Court's order should be reversed. The firm correctly points out that it cannot continue the joint representation of Executone and Mahar due to the fact that the clients will have discordant interests upon trial (see, Code of Professional Responsibility EC 5-14, 5-15; DR 5-105 [B], [C]). The conflict would arise where Executone offers its defense that even if Mahar engaged in misconduct, it is not responsible because it had no notice of, and did not acquiesce in, the misconduct (see, Spoon v American Agriculturalist, 120 A.D.2d 857, 858). It is clear that the firm cannot adequately represent the interest of Mahar and, at the same time, urge the foregoing defense on behalf of its other client, Executone. Accordingly, the firm should be permitted to withdraw from its representation of Mahar.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and application granted. Kane, J.P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Reilly v. Executone of Albany, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1987
135 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

O'Reilly v. Executone of Albany, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KAREN O'REILLY, Also Known as KAREN VERDICCHIO, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTONE OF…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Villano v. Villano

While the disqualification of attorneys has been granted in cases where the clients have cross-claims against…

Matter of Bacot v. Winston

Matter of H. Children, 160 Misc 2d 298 (Supreme Court Kings County 1994). While the disqualification of…