From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mineola Auto., Inc. v. Millbrook Props., Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 4, 2014
118 A.D.3d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-4

MINEOLA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., appellant, v. MILLBROOK PROPERTIES, LTD., et al., respondents, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).

Carney & McKay, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert B. McKay of counsel), for appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Georgia S. Alikakos, Nicholas P. Hurzeler, and Gregory S. Katz of counsel), and Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y., for respondents (one brief filed).


Carney & McKay, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert B. McKay of counsel), for appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Georgia S. Alikakos, Nicholas P. Hurzeler, and Gregory S. Katz of counsel), and Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y., for respondents (one brief filed).

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated January 31, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants Millbrook Properties, Ltd., and LGM Equities, LLC, to disqualify its attorney.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Whether to disqualify an attorney is a matter which lies within the sound discretion of the court” (Matter of Madris v. Oliviera, 97 A.D.3d 823, 825, 949 N.Y.S.2d 696). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, “considering the settled principle that doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety” ( Seeley v. Seeley, 129 A.D.2d 625, 627, 514 N.Y.S.2d 110). DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mineola Auto., Inc. v. Millbrook Props., Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 4, 2014
118 A.D.3d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Mineola Auto., Inc. v. Millbrook Props., Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:MINEOLA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., appellant, v. MILLBROOK PROPERTIES, LTD., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 4, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 680
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3989

Citing Cases

Cohen v. Cohen

The disqualification of an attorney is generally a matter resting within the sound discretion of the court…

Valencia v. Ripley

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the mother's motion which…