Subin Associates, P. C. v. Two Ninety One Broadway Realty Associates
Opinion of the Court
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Grossman, J.), entered March 21, 1986, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to disqualify the defendant’s law firm, is reversed, on the law and the facts, to the extent appealed from and the motion denied without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery, with costs.
The threshold question presented by this appeal is whether plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that a member of defendant’s law firm, one Jacob Linett, should be called as a witness at the trial of the issue of defendant landlord’s asserted right to install an electric meter at plaintiff tenant’s premises.
Just recently, the caveat has been expressed that: "Disqualification in litigation can be highly disruptive. See, e.g., Government of India v. Cook, 569 F. 2d 737 (2d Cir. 1978). Only significant conflicts, ones that threaten the integrity of the court’s rulings, ought to lead a judge to disqualify a lawyer.
On the meager record before us, defendant has not yet shown that Mr. Linett should be called as a witness at the trial. Accordingly, disqualification should not be ordered at this juncture.
If, however, it should develop, at a later stage of this lawsuit, that Mr. Linett ought to be called, plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to renew its motion at that time. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.