Touton v Touton

Touton v Touton 2010 NY Slip Op 01744 [71 AD3d 443] March 4, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Wendy Touton, Appellant,
v
Guillaume Touton, Defendant. Cohen Lans LLP, Nonparty Respondent.

—[*1] Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz P.C., New York (Ronald C. Minkoff of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen Lans LLP, New York (Deborah E. Lans of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered July 22, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's cross motion to discharge her attorneys for cause and require disgorgement of fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that there was no conflict of interest during the period that plaintiff's attorneys had performed their services, since it was uncontradicted that they were unaware of plaintiff's connection with another action in which the firm subsequently appeared, and, absent any specific information or other reason for doing so, the firm had no duty to inquire about the possibility of any such connection. In any event, even if the firm's appearance in the other action were a conflict of interest, forfeiture of fees would not be warranted (see Matter of Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v Friedman, Khafif & Assoc., 41 AD3d 367, 370 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]; Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, 304 AD2d 86, 91 [2003]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address plaintiff's other contentions. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.