QUINN v. Mark A. Musachio, etc., nonparty-respondent. (2005)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Ronald M. Sickmen, the former attorney for the plaintiffs, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated May 7, 2004, which granted the motion of Mark A. Musachio, attorney of record for the plaintiffs, for an award of the entire attorney's fee following settlement of the underlying personal injury action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for an award of the entire attorney's fee following settlement of the underlying personal injury action.   “[An] attorney who engages in misconduct by violating the Disciplinary Rules is not entitled to legal fees for any services rendered” (Matter of Winston, 214 A.D.2d 677, 677, 625 N.Y.S.2d 927 [internal quotations omitted];  see Pessoni v. Rabkin, 220 A.D.2d 732, 633 N.Y.S.2d 338;  Shelton v. Shelton, 151 A.D.2d 659, 542 N.Y.S.2d 719;  Brill v. Friends World Coll., 133 A.D.2d 729, 520 N.Y.S.2d 160).   Here, the appellant violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105(a) by representing both the driver of the automobile involved in a collision and a passenger in that vehicle.   Such multiple representation of parties with a conflicting interest violates the Disciplinary Rules (see Alcantara v. Mendez, 303 A.D.2d 337, 756 N.Y.S.2d 90;  Sidor v. Zuhoski, 261 A.D.2d 529, 690 N.Y.S.2d 637;  Pessoni v. Rabkin, supra ).   Thus, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to an attorney's fee for services rendered during the period of his representation.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.