Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1977 |
| Citation | 399 N.Y.S.2d 16,59 A.D.2d 850 |
| Parties | Betty A. GROSSMAN et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COMMERCIAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Grossman, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
R. A. Bragar, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before LUPIANO, J. P., and BIRNS, EVANS and LANE, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 20, 1977, denying defendant's motion to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs on the ground that he is a principal of plaintiff corporations and is likely to be an important witness at trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel is granted.
In this suit to recover monies allegedly owing from the liquidation of the assets of the corporate plaintiffs, it is clear and uncontradicted from the examinations before trial that plaintiffs' counsel has real and pertinent knowledge of the facts, and that throughout the relevant business existence of both plaintiff corporations he was not engaged in the active practice of law, but, rather, was engaged on behalf of the corporations in their business activities.
Plaintiffs' counsel, most likely, will be called as a witness on behalf of said corporations at trial. The appearance at trial of plaintiffs' counsel in a dual capacity conflicts with the canons of ethics which specifically prohibit a lawyer from accepting litigation and require him to withdraw therefrom, where he knows he ought to be called as a witness (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 5, Disciplinary Rules 5-101(B)(4) and 5-102(A)).
Counsel's appearance as a witness does not fall within the exception which provides he may continue as a lawyer and testify "(a)s to any matter, if refusal would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer or his firm as counsel in a particular case" (DR 5-101(B)(4) and DR 5-102(A)). Thus, plaintiffs' allegation of pecuniary hardship alone is insufficient to avoid disqualification, because financial hardship is not synonymous with substantial hardship within the meaning of the exception. The litigation to be tried is relatively simple, inasmuch as plaintiffs claim that defendant received substantially greater proceeds from the liquidation of the corporate assets than it actually credited to the account of the total...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lumbard v. Maglia, Inc.
...with the retention of new counsel is not the "substantial hardship" that DR 5-101(B)(4) envisions. Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp., 59 A.D.2d 850, 399 N.Y.S.2d 16, 17 (1st Dep't 1977). See also MacArther v. Bank of New York, 524 F.Supp. 1205, 1210 (S.D.N.Y.1981) ("If the expense and de......
-
Anderson & Anderson LLP v. N. Am. Foreign Trading Corp.
...v. Carltun on the Park, 24 Misc.3d 1235(A) at *7 (Sup.Ct. Nassau County July 30, 2009) ; see also Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp., 59 A.D.2d 850, 850, 399 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1st Dep't 1977) (pecuniary hardship alone is insufficient to avoid disqualification).The NYSBA has also provided guida......
-
Ulster Scientific v. Guest Elchrom Scientific
...will be called to testify,9 thus requiring his disqualification under Rule 5-102(A). See generally Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp., 59 A.D.2d 850, 399 N.Y.S.2d 16, 17 (1st Dep't 1977). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Malmed's disqualification would subject him to "substantial hards......
-
S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp.
...81 A.D.2d 906, 439 N.Y.S.2d 202; North Shore Neurosurgical Group v. Leivy, 72 A.D.2d 598, 421 N.Y.S.2d 100; Grossman v. Commercial Capital Corp., 59 A.D.2d 850, 399 N.Y.S.2d 16; Gasoline Expwy. Inc. v. Sun Oil of Penn., 64 A.D.2d 647, 407 N.Y.S.2d 64; 1776 Associates Inc. v. Lazrus, 99 Misc......