From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petrossian v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 11, 1995
219 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 11, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to disqualify Jerome R. Halperin, Esq., Guy S. Halperin, Esq., and Halperin, Kramer Halperin, their predecessors, successors, and associates (hereinafter collectively HKH) as counsel for the defendants they represent.

A party's choice of counsel is a substantive right not to be taken away absent some overriding public interest (see, Matter of Abrams [Anonymous], 62 N.Y.2d 183). The burden is on the proponent of such disqualification to show sufficient proof to warrant such a determination (see, Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 101 A.D.2d 268, 280).

The plaintiff herein was not a named party in the prior suit in which HKH represented Prime Concern, Inc. (hereinafter Prime), a close corporation owned by the plaintiff's father. Further, the plaintiff has failed to allege the nature of the actual confidential information allegedly transmitted to HKH about her (see, Greene v Greene, 47 N.Y.2d 447; Kushner v Herman, 215 A.D.2d 633; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 97 A.D.2d 151) or even show the reasonable probability that such information was transmitted in the course of HKH's prior representation of Prime (cf., Sirianni v Tomlinson, 133 A.D.2d 391).

We also reject the plaintiff's contention that she could not be more specific as to any information without waiving her privilege. There is no reason why the plaintiff could not have submitted the information to the court for an in camera inspection, or submitted it pursuant to an appropriate protective order (see, Lipin v Bender, 84 N.Y.2d 562; Lopez v Precision Papers, 99 A.D.2d 507 [as to implicit use of in camera inspections]). Such a submission would appear to be especially appropriate here, since, according to the plaintiff, HKH was already aware of this alleged confidential information.

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Petrossian v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 11, 1995
219 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Petrossian v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE PETROSSIAN, Appellant, v. HOWARD L. GROSSMAN et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 11, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 187

Citing Cases

Gulino v. Gulino

A party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his or her own choosing is a…

Bennett v. Hucke

The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests solely in the discretion of the trial court (see…