Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Zachary WOODSON, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MENDON LEASING CORP., et al., Defendants. Berger Stern & Webb, LLP, Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about April 29, 1998, which granted plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the firm of Berger, Stern and Webb from representing defendant Mendon Leasing Corp. and ordered an in camera inspection of the disqualified attorneys' files prior to their transfer to another firm, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly granted the motion for disqualification based on a conflict of interest. Counsel to defendant Mendon Leasing, the lessor of the truck involved in the accident in which the infant plaintiff was injured, had in a separate action relating to the same accident previously represented John Densby, the driver of the truck involved in the accident. Since Mendon's interests in the litigation arising from the accident are in material respects adverse to those of counsel's former client, Densby, it is clear that counsel may not represent Mendon (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-108(A)(1) [22 NYCRR 1200.27(a)(1)]; Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner and Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 651 N.Y.S.2d 954, 674 N.E.2d 663). Having disqualified counsel on the basis of such conflict, the court's directive that there be an in camera inspection of the files to be turned over to succeeding counsel was entirely appropriate as a means of shielding from disclosure the privileged communications of the disqualified firm's prior client (see, Spectrum Systems International v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 22, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)