Minor v. Combo Stores Co.
Opinion of the Court
In the instant action, the appellants, inter alia, moved to disqualify the plaintiffs counsel because of an alleged conflict of interest that arose from his prior representation of Stephen Cooperman. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied this motion, since, in the prior matters, Ross represented only Stephen Cooperman, and the appellants failed to establish that the Partnerships had an attorney-client relationship with Ross (see Bloom v Hensel, 59 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2009]; Jane St. Co. v Rosenberg & Estis, 192 AD2d 451 [1993]).
The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.PJ., Balkin, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31286(U).]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.