IN RE: BRIAN R. (Anonymous). (2008)

In four related child abuse and neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, nonparty J. Henry Neale, Jr., appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered March 23, 2006, which denied his motion to vacate his disqualification as counsel for the father.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The disqualification of an attorney is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Marvin Q., 45 A.D.3d 852, 846 N.Y.S.2d 356).  “Although ‘[a] party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his or her own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged,’ such right will not supersede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted” (Matter of Marvin Q., 45 A.D.3d 852, 853, 846 N.Y.S.2d 356, quoting Campolongo v. Campolongo, 2 A.D.3d 476, 768 N.Y.S.2d 498).   Here, the nonparty-appellant, who represented the father in this neglect proceeding, communicated with one of the subject children, and used her as an interpreter when speaking with the parties, without the knowledge and consent of the Law Guardian (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104[A][1] [22 NYCRR 1200.35(a)(1) ] ).   Under such circumstances, there was a clear showing that disqualification was warranted (see Matter of Marvin Q., 45 A.D.3d 852, 846 N.Y.S.2d 356;  Matter of Carey v. Carey, 13 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 788 N.Y.S.2d 210;  Campolongo v. Campolongo, 2 A.D.3d 476, 768 N.Y.S.2d 498).   Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the nonparty-appellant's motion to vacate his disqualification as counsel for the father.