Gillespie v. City of Yonkers

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an amended order denying the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the defendant's counsel under Rule 3.7 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's counsel's anticipated testimony was necessary, and dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning the sua sponte rejection of a proposed judicial subpoena because no appeal lay as of right from that determination.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any anticipated testimony by the defendant's counsel was necessary to her case; therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to disqualify counsel.
2. No appeal lies as of right from the portion of the amended order that sua sponte rejected the proposed judicial subpoena.
3. Leave to appeal was denied under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant's counsel should be disqualified under Rule 3.7 because counsel's testimony was necessary and would be prejudicial to the defendant.
2. Whether the plaintiff had an appeal as of right from the portion of the amended order that sua sponte rejected the proposed judicial subpoena for testimony by the defendant's counsel.
3. Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the subpoena-related portion of the amended order.

Disposition

other