General
562 Eglinton, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Samuel Merlo, Appellant, et al., Defendants
277 A.D.2d 1027716 N.Y.S.2d 228·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2000·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
562 Eglinton, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Samuel Merlo, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[716 NYS2d 228]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed'without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to disqualify the law firm representing defendant Samuel Merlo from further representation of Merlo in this action (see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131, rearg denied 89 NY2d 917). The law firm previously represented plaintiffs in connection with a residential development project, and the issues involved therein are substantially related to the subject matter of this declaratory judgment action (see, Press v Lozier, Inc., 239 AD2d 879). Whether the law firm obtained “any confidential information in connection with that employment is not determinative” (Press v Lozier, Inc., supra). Plaintiffs are entitled to certainty that their interests will not be prejudiced based on that prior representation (see, Reid Petroleum Corp. v Boller’s Auto Sales & Serv., 248 AD2d 1016; Press v Lozier, Inc., supra). The court also properly denied Merlo’s cross motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice to renew. “Where pertinent facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant and may be revealed through pretrial discovery, summary judgment should be denied” (Shellberry v Albright, 262 AD2d 942). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Barry, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.