| Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02818 [94 AD3d 919] |
| April 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Albert Jacobs, LLP, Respondent, v Diana Parker,Appellant. |
—[*1] Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard J. Rubin and David S. Greenberg ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered July 6, 2011, whichgranted the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovskyand Popeo, P.C., from the continued representation of the defendant.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Sometime in December 2008, the plaintiff sought to associate or merge with another lawfirm. One of the firms with which the plaintiff considered associating or merging was Mintz,Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (hereinafter the Mintz firm), the law firmrepresenting the defendant in this action. In the course of discussions between the plaintiff andthe Mintz firm, the plaintiff's principal allegedly disclosed certain information regarding, interalia, billing rates and the plaintiff's prior representation of the defendant's decedent, GertrudeNeumark Rothschild. After the commencement of the instant action, the plaintiff learned that theMintz firm was representing the defendant. The plaintiff moved to disqualify the Mintz firm. TheSupreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.
The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of thecourt (see Columbus Constr. Co., Inc. vPetrillo Bldrs. Supply Corp., 20 AD3d 383 [2005]; Nationwide Assoc. v Targee St.Internal Medicine Group, 303 AD2d 728 [2003]). Under the particular facts of this case, theSupreme Court providently exercised it discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to disqualifythe Mintz firm (see Galanos vGalanos, 20 AD3d 450, 452 [2005]; Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 227 AD2d 301,302 [1996]). The discussions between the plaintiff and the Mintz firm, which purportedlyincluded matters at issue in the instant action, create "the danger that confidences" weredisclosed, thus warranting the disqualification of the Mintz firm (Wall St. Assoc. vBrodsky, 227 AD2d at 302). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.