Opinion
February 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Lynch, J.).
Given the asserted seriousness of the injuries sustained by plaintiff's infant and that the bill of particulars was actually served within one week of the deadline imposed by the conditional order of preclusion — which delay was apparently caused by the illness of a stenographer employed by plaintiff's counsel and resulted in no prejudice to defendants — Supreme Court's vacatur of the conditional order and direction that defendant Scott T. Neahr accept the proffered bill of particulars cannot be said to have been an abuse of discretion (see, Juers v. Barry, 114 A.D.2d 1009; Goussous v. Modern Food Mkt., 93 A.D.2d 417, 419-420).
There is merit, however, to plaintiff's contention that her motion for disqualification of the law firm representing Neahr should have been granted. It is undisputed that Latha Raghavan, an attorney presently associated with the law offices of Stephen R. Spring (which represents Neahr), was formerly associated with the firm of plaintiff's attorney, and in fact worked on this very case, on plaintiff's behalf, before leaving that firm. Having been privy to plaintiff's confidences, Raghavan herself is clearly disqualified from representing any of the defendants, and that disqualification extends to the Spring firm (see, Cardinale v. Golinello, 43 N.Y.2d 288, 296; Aversa v. Taubes, 194 A.D.2d 579, 580).
In the absence of any indication that Neahr will be unduly burdened by the requirement that he obtain alternate counsel, the fact that Raghavan has neither done any work in connection with the case since joining the Spring firm, nor been a party to any discussion of it, does not persuade us that plaintiff should be denied the relief she seeks (see, Severino v. DiIorio, 186 A.D.2d 178, 180; Desbiens v. Ford Motor Co., 81 A.D.2d 707).
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied that part of plaintiff's cross motion seeking to disqualify the law offices of Stephen R. Spring from representing defendant Scott T. Neahr; cross motion granted to that extent; and, as so modified, affirmed.