Lebetkin v. Giray et al, No. 1:2018cv08170 - Document 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER......Lebetkins motion to disqualify the RFS Attorneys from representing Giray in this action is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/20/2018) (gr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lebetkin v. Giray et al Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- X : STEVEN LEBETKIN, : : Plaintiff, : : -v: : AYSE GIRAY a/k/a SARA BARAN, LEWIS : SASSOON, ESQ., SASSOON & CYMROT, LLP, : and JOHN DOES 1 through 25, : : Defendants. : : -------------------------------------- X 18cv8170(DLC) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPEARANCES: For the plaintiff: Paul Verner Verner Simon 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, New York 10005 For the defendants: Michael H. Smith Rosenberg Feldman Smith, LLP 551 Fifth Ave, 24th Floor New York, New York 10176 DENISE COTE, District Judge: Plaintiff Steven Lebetkin (“Lebetkin”) has moved to disqualify attorneys Richard B. Feldman, Michael H. Smith, and Stephen J. Sassoon, and the firm Rosenberg Feldman Smith, LLP, (collectively, “the RFS Attorneys”) as counsel for defendant Ayse Giray (“Giray”). For the reasons that follow, that motion is denied. Dockets.Justia.com The procedural history of this action is set forth more fully in the Court’s Opinion and Order of October 26, which denied Lebetkin’s motion to remand, severed the RFS Attorneys from the case, and dismissed Lebetkin’s claims against them without prejudice. In essence, Lebetkin has, at various times and in various courts, asserted claims against the RFS Attorneys for tortious interference with the alleged consulting agreement under which he is suing Giray for breach, among others. The Second Circuit has explained that “disqualification is called for only when an attorney’s conduct tends to taint the underlying trial.” United States v. Prevezon Holdings Ltd. 839 F.3d 227, 241 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “Because the courts must guard against tactical use of motions to disqualify counsel, they are subject to fairly strict scrutiny.” v. Dittmer, 873 F.2d 522, 531 (2d Cir. 1989). Lamborn “[E]ven when made in the best of faith, such motions inevitably cause delay” in the litigation. Bd. of Educ. V. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir. 1979). “In deciding whether to disqualify an attorney, a district court must balance a client’s right freely to choose his counsel against the need to maintain the highest standards of the profession.” GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter, LLC, 618 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The movant “bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how and as to what issues in the case the prejudice may occur, and that 2 the likelihood of prejudice occurring . . . is substantial.” Murray v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Lebetkin has not met this high bar. He has alleged that there is a conflict of interest between the RFS Attorneys and Giray because the RFS Attorneys are defendants in a related action.1 Lebetkin speculates that the RFS Attorneys and Giray might have conflicting defenses in the related lawsuits. Such speculation does not survive the strict scrutiny called for when a litigant moves to disqualify counsel for another party. Even if the facts as alleged did suggest a conflict between Giray and the RFS Attorneys, Giray has waived any such conflict, and she is entitled to her choice of legal counsel. Conclusion Lebetkin’s motion to disqualify the RFS Attorneys from representing Giray in this action is denied. Dated: New York, New York November 20, 2018 __________________________________ DENISE COTE United States District Judge Lebetkin additionally suggests in his submissions in support of his motion that the RFS Attorneys may be called as witnesses, and that there may have been an attorney-client relationship between Lebetkin and the RFS Attorneys that would prevent them from representing an adverse party such as Giray. In his reply memorandum of law, however, Lebetkin disclaims reliance on these arguments, and in any event, they do not alter the Court’s conclusion. 1 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
