| Goldman v Goldman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07228 [66 AD3d 641] |
| October 6, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jennifer Goldman, Now Known as Jennifer Britt,Appellant, v Scott Goldman, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven Siegel, P.C., Kew Gardens, N.Y., for respondent. Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated November 3,2003, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Zimmerman, J.), dated March 26, 2009, as denied her cross motion to disqualify the law firm ofSteven Siegel, P.C., from representing the defendant in a post-judgment action to modify thejudgment.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs ordisbursements, and the cross motion is granted.
A party's right to be represented by an attorney of his or her own choice is "a valued rightwhich should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted" (Zutler v Drivershield Corp., 15 AD3d397 [2005]; see Wolfson vPosner, 57 AD3d 979 [2008]; Goldstein v Held, 52 AD3d 471 [2008]). The party seeking todisqualify a law firm or an attorney bears the burden of demonstrating the need fordisqualification (see Gulino vGulino, 35 AD3d 812 [2006]). In the instant case, the plaintiff met that burden.Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify thelaw firm of Steven Siegel, P.C., from representing the defendant in a post-judgment action tomodify the judgment of divorce. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.