Defendant, individually and in his capacity as investigative consultant to the Onondaga County Board of Ethics, moved to disqualify Plaintiff's attorneys from further representation of Plaintiff in the underlying action on the ground that "they were interested witnesses whose testimony would be necessary and relevant to the action."
Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion, whereupon Defendant appealed Supreme Court's ruling. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.
In the words of the Appellate Division: "We conclude that [Defendant] failed to meet his "burden of making 'a clear showing that disqualification is warranted' ", citing Lake v Kaleida Health, 60 AD3d 1469 and S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437" and "Supreme Court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see generally HoganWillig, PLLC v Swormville Fire Co., Inc., 210 AD3d 1369)."
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.