From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MARCUS BORG ROSENBERG v. GILBERT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2001
280 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

February 2, 2001.

Robert D. Lillienstein for defendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent.

David M. Richman for third-party defendant-appellant.

Pro Se

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 19, 2000, which granted the motion by defendant and third-and fourth-party plaintiff Gilbert, Segall Young, LLP to disqualify fourth-party defendant David M. Richman as counsel to third-party defendant and legal malpractice counter claimant Omabuild Corporation in this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) whether Richman was involved in the making of Omabuild's determination not to make post-judgment efforts to collect damages or attorney's fees to which it had been found to be entitled in a summary holdover proceeding in the Civil Court, New York County, entitledOmabuild Corporation v. Copacabana Nightclub Inc., etc., et al. (Index No. LT 85053/92), and (2) if Richman was involved in the making of that determination, whether Omabuild has validly consented to Richman's representation of it in this action; and, upon the court's determination of said issues, for disposition of the motion to disqualify in accordance therewith. The stay of proceedings in Supreme Court granted by a prior order of this Court, dated September 21, 2000, is continued pending final disposition of the disqualification motion pursuant to this order.


The present record is not sufficiently developed to permit determination of whether Richman has a genuine conflict-of-interest in representing Omabuild herein by reason of the fourth-party action against him, seeking contribution in the event Omabuild prevails on its legal malpractice counterclaim, and, if so, whether Omabuild has validly consented to be represented by Richman nonetheless (see, 22 NYCRR § 1200.20). We therefore remand for further proceedings as indicated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

MARCUS BORG ROSENBERG v. GILBERT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2001
280 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

MARCUS BORG ROSENBERG v. GILBERT

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS BORG ROSENBERG DIAMOND, Plaintiff, v. GILBERT, SEGALL YOUNG, LLP…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 855