| Mineola Auto., Inc. v Millbrook Props., Ltd. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03989 [118 AD3d 680] |
| June 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Mineola Automotive, Inc.,Appellant, v Millbrook Properties, Ltd., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.(And a Third-Party Action.) |
Carney & McKay, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert B. McKay of counsel), forappellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Georgia S.Alikakos, Nicholas P. Hurzeler, and Gregory S. Katz of counsel), and Pillinger MillerTarallo, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y., for respondents (one brief filed).
In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated January 31, 2013,which granted the motion of the defendants Millbrook Properties, Ltd., and LGMEquities, LLC, to disqualify its attorney.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Whether to disqualify an attorney is a matter which lies within the sound discretionof the court" (Matter of Madrisv Oliviera, 97 AD3d 823, 825 [2012]). Here, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney,"considering the settled principle that doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interestmust be resolved in favor of disqualification so as to avoid even the appearance ofimpropriety" (Seeley v Seeley, 129 AD2d 625, 627 [1987]). Dillon, J.P.,Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.