Opinion
2001-04105, 2001-04106
Argued April 3, 2003.
May 12, 2003.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, and as limited by her notices of appeal and brief, from so much of (1) an amended infant compromise order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J), dated February 14, 2001, as sua sponte disqualified Bernadette Panzella, Esq., from representing her, and (2) an order of the same court also dated February 14, 2001, as sua sponte disqualified Panzella and contained certain language regarding Panzella.
Bernadette Panzella, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert A. Mulhall of counsel), for appellant.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated February 14, 2001, as contained certain language regarding Bernadette Panzella, Esq., is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the infant's compromise order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements.
Although the disqualification of an attorney is a matter which rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Boyd v. Trent, 287 A.D.2d 475), 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 absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted (see Dominguez v. Community Health Plan of Suffolk, 284 A.D.2d 294; Olmoz v. Town of Fishkill, 258 A.D.2d 447). In the instant case, we find nothing in the record which warranted the disqualification of the plaintiff's counsel.
The remaining issues raised in the plaintiff's brief are not properly before this court as the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the trial court's statements (see Warm v. State, 265 A.D.2d 546). Merely because the plaintiff's counsel finds certain language contained in the orders to be objectionable does not provide a basis for an appeal (see Anspach v. Miller Bluff's Constru. Corp., 280 A.D.2d 564; Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J. v. Evergreen Int. Aviation, 275 A.D.2d 358).
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.