From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. WMHT Educational Telecommunications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 29, 1993
195 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

July 29, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Kahn, J.).


Because we conclude that, under the unique circumstances of this case, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant WMHT Educational Telecommunications, Inc. to disqualify plaintiff Kim Stuart, an attorney, from representing the remaining plaintiffs in this action (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437; cf., Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-101 [B] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.20 (b)]; DR 5-102 [ 22 NYCRR 1200.21]), we affirm. "The advocate-witness disqualification rules contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide guidance, not binding authority * * * [and courts must also] consider such factors as the party's valued right to choose its own counsel, and the fairness and effect in the particular factual setting of granting disqualification or continuing representation" (S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., supra, at 440). In exercising its discretion, Supreme Court is to balance the substantive rights of litigants, on the one hand, against the ethics of the legal profession, on the other (see, supra, at 443).

Here, it is undisputed that Stuart, a party to the contract forming the basis for this action and a major participant in the events underlying plaintiffs' claim for damages, is entitled to represent herself in the action. Further, her status and interest in the lawsuit appear to be identical to those of the remaining plaintiffs, her brother and their subchapter S corporation. That being the case, Stuart's disqualification would have little or no effect upon the nature or extent of her participation in the action. Compared to the injury to the remaining plaintiffs' right to representation by counsel of their own choice, defendants stand to gain very little from Stuart's disqualification. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Stuart v. WMHT Educational Telecommunications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 29, 1993
195 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Stuart v. WMHT Educational Telecommunications, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE STUART et al., Respondents, v. WMHT EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS…

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

Date published: Jul 29, 1993

Citations

195 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

Miloslavskaya v. Gokhberg

The advocate-witness disqualification rules contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide…

Miloslavskaya v. Gokhberg

The advocate-witness disqualification rules contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide…