Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, N.Y. Branch

Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, N.Y. Branch 2011 NY Slip Op 09541 Decided on December 27, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
6438N 600975/10

[*1]Justinian Capital SPC, for and on behalf of Blue Heron Segregated Portfolio, Plaintiff-Appellant, ——

v

WestLB AG, New York Branch, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Reed Smith LLP, New York (Mark L. Weyman of counsel), for
appellant.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York (Christopher M.
Paparella of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered May 18, 2011, which granted defendants' motion to disqualify Reed Smith LLP as counsel for plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion (see Decana Inc. v Contogouris, 27 AD3d 207 [2006]). In Bank Hapoalim B.M. v WestLB AG (82 AD3d 433 [2011]), we affirmed the disqualification of Reed Smith as counsel for the plaintiffs, including the plaintiff in this action, in a suit claiming that defendants had engaged in negligent and fraudulent conduct in mismanaging the plaintiffs' investments. Although the particular investment vehicles and legal claims at issue in this case are not identical to those in Bank Hapoalim, the cases are substantially related. The motion court correctly found that the meeting between defendants and the attorneys that later joined Reed Smith, which required disqualification in Bank Hapoalim, mandates disqualification in this case. Although there is no evidence that the investment vehicle at issue in this case was specifically discussed at the [*2]meeting, "doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification" (Rose Ocko Found. v Liebovitz, 155 AD2d 426, 428 [1989]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2011

CLERK