Hempstead Bank v. Reliance Mortg. Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
| Parties | HEMPSTEAD BANK, Respondent, v. RELIANCE MORTGAGE CORPORATION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anthony T. Accetta, Denver, Colo., for appellants.
Dalton, Henoch & Kadin, Hempstead (Gilbert Henoch and Ronald Kadin, Hempstead, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, LAZER and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover payment based on a promissory note and guaranty, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 10, 1980, which denied their motions to dismiss the action for failure to join indispensable parties and to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiff.
Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision denying the defendants' motion to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiff and substituting therefor a provision granting said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The facts reveal that plaintiff's attorney has specific and personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the promissory note in question. Although we cast absolutely no aspersions upon him in this hotly contested case, it is undisputed that he was present at the negotiations for the note and is the subject of some of defendants' accusations concerning duress. Although plaintiff may not intend to call this attorney as a witness, defendants categorically state that they will do so. Even if defendants renege, however, it is difficult to see how plaintiff could avoid calling him in circumstances where an unfavorable inference might be drawn from his failure to appear (see Noce v. Kaufman, 2 N.Y.2d 347, 353, 161 N.Y.S.2d 1, 141 N.E.2d 529). Accordingly, plaintiff's counsel's law firm must be disqualified from the case (see Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-102, subd. [A]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell
...v. Board of Education, 129 A.D.2d 659, 660-61, 514 N.Y.S.2d 402, 403-04 (2d Dept. 1987); Hempstead Bank v. Reliance Mortgage Corp., 81 A.D.2d 906, 906, 439 N.Y.S. 2d 202, 203 (2d Dept.1981); North Shore Neurosurgical Group v. Leivy, 72 A.D.2d 598, 598-99, 421 N.Y.S.2d 100, 101-02 (2d The fi......
-
Daniel C., Matter of
...disqualified by the court (Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-101, subd. [b]; DR 5-102, subd. [a]; Hempstead Bank v. Reliance Mtge. Corp., 81 A.D.2d 906, 439 N.Y.S.2d 202; North Shore Neurosurgical Group v. Levy, 72 A.D.2d 598, 421 N.Y.S.2d 100; see People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294, ......
-
Paretti v. Cavalier Label Co., Inc.
...Hitzig v. Borough-Tel Serv., Inc., 108 A.D.2d 677, 485 N.Y.S.2d 541 (1st Dep't 1985) (mem.op.); Hempstead Bank v. Reliance Mortgage Corp., 81 A.D.2d 906, 439 N.Y.S.2d 202 (2d Dep't 1981) (mem.op.); In re Will of Bartoli, 137 Misc.2d at 501, 521 N.Y.S.2d at 394. The vicarious disqualificatio......
-
Hof, Matter of
...F.Supp. 581, 589, affd. 518 F.2d 751; Colonie Hill v. Duffy, 86 A.D.2d 645, 646, 447 N.Y.S.2d 23; see, also, Hempstead Bank v. Reliance Mtge. 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). Barnett's reliance upon the holdi......