Summary
The New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order denying Joan Peters’s motion to disqualify the petitioner’s attorney and stay proceedings in an estate matter. Although the court found that Peters established a prior attorney-client relationship, substantial relatedness, and materially adverse interests, it held that she waived any objection by waiting approximately one year while actively participating in the litigation. The court concluded that the motion was an offensive tactical measure and affirmed without costs.
Holdings
- Respondent waived her objection to the attorney's representation because she knew or should have known of the alleged conflict for an extended period, actively participated in the litigation for more than a year, and delayed moving for disqualification until the motion could provide a tactical advantage.
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent waived her objection to petitioner's attorney representing petitioner by knowingly delaying her motion to disqualify while actively participating in the litigation.
- Whether the Surrogate's Court properly denied respondent's motion to disqualify petitioner's attorney and his law firm.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218(cited)
- Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334(cited)
- Edgewater Constr. Co., Inc. v 81 & 3 of Watertown, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 24 AD3d 1229, 1231(cited)
- Jamaica Pub. Serv. Co. v AIU Ins. Co., 92 NY2d 631, 636-638(followed)
- Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 310, 313(followed)
- S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443(followed)
- Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 132, rearg denied 89 NY2d 917(followed)
- Hele Asset, LLC v S.E.E. Realty Assoc., 106 AD3d 692, 693-694(followed)
- Gustafson v Dippert, 68 AD3d 1678, 1679(followed)
- Lake v Kaleida Health, 60 AD3d 1469, 1470(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…