BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY v. CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant,
Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Defendant. Century Indemnity Company, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Defendant–Respondent, American Re Insurance Co., et al., Defendants.

4033-, 4034

Decided: April 03, 2025

Webber, J.P., Kennedy, Mendez, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York (Anton Metlitsky of counsel), for appellant. Covington & Burling LLP, New York (David A. Luttinger, Jr. of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC (Mark W. Mosier of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered October 2, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted Brooklyn Union Gas Company's motion to disqualify two individuals from serving as expert witnesses for Century Indemnity Company in connection with cases under Index Nos. 403087/02 and 603405/01, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting Brooklyn Union's motion to disqualify based on a conflict of interest. As the court explained in detail, the record establishes that it was objectively reasonable for Brooklyn Union to conclude that a confidential relationship existed with the individuals in question, and also that confidential or privileged information was disclosed by Brooklyn Union to these individuals (see Manna Amsterdam Ave. LLC v. West 73rd Tenants Corp., 226 A.D.3d 456, 457, 209 N.Y.S.3d 351 [1st Dept. 2024]; Roundpoint v. V.N.A., Inc., 207 A.D.2d 123, 125, 621 N.Y.S.2d 161 [3d Dept. 1995]).

We reject Century's request that we adopt an additional requirement that a movant also establish that they would be prejudiced if the specific confidential disclosures made to the expert were revealed. It is well settled that a court has the inherent power to disqualify an expert in order to preserve the fairness and integrity of the judicial process (Roundpoint, 207 A.D.2d at 125, 621 N.Y.S.2d 161). In order to obtain disqualification, a movant is not required to establish that specific disclosures made to the expert would prejudice them if they were to be revealed by the expert (see Manna Amsterdam Ave. LLC, 226 A.D.3d at 457, 209 N.Y.S.3d 351; Roundpoint, 207 A.D.2d at 125, 621 N.Y.S.2d 161; Matter of New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, 2022 WL 203191, *4, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12785, *12 [S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2022, 20 Civ 8924(CM)(GWG)]).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network