Rosenthal v Gordon

[*1] Rosenthal v Gordon 2005 NY Slip Op 50029(U) Decided on January 20, 2005 Supreme Court, Kings County Schneier, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 20, 2005
Supreme Court, Kings County

SCOTT G. ROSENTHAL, 1879 BLEECKER LLC, 62-64 S. ELLIOT LLC, 1342 BERGEN LLC & SCHAEFFER HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff,

against

NICHOLAS GORDON, a/ka/ NICK GORDON D/B/A A-1 MANAGEMENT d/b/a A-1 REALTY d/b/a A-1 MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants.



23386/2004



ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Wenig Ginsberg Saltiel & Greene LLP

26 Court Street, Suite 502

Brooklyn, NY 11242

PRIOR ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Lanin & Moses

1065 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1802

New York, NY 10018

Martin Schneier, J.

Defendants move to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, Wenig Ginsberg Saltiel & Greene, LLP, (hereinafter WGS & G) on the grounds that it previously represented the defendant Nicholas Gordon. "Generally, an attorney will be disqualified where the party seeking that relief meets its burden of establishing a substantial relationship between the issues in the present litigation and the subject matter of the prior representation, or where counsel had access to confidential material substantially related to the present litigation" (Spano v. Tawfik, 271 AD2d 522). The prior representation occurred in 1997 when a current member of WGS & G represented Nichlolas Gordon in an eviction proceeding that Gordon commenced as a landlord. Ordinarily this would not be enough to merit the disqualification of the law firm in this, unrelated, real estate dispute. However, WGS & G have submitted an attorney's affirmation which states:

3.It should be noted that the Defendant, Nicholas Gordon is a well-known operator in the Brooklyn and Queens real estate [*2]market and is notorious for having no scruples and that he willtake whatever action is necessary, whether legal or not.

4.In the course of my law practice over the past several years, I have personally come across Mr. Gordon and his nefarious ways more than once.

...

7.As I am familiar with some of Mr. Gordon's escapades, I can only presume that the threats and illegal acts detailed in the annexed affidavit of Scott Rosenthal are very true.

Attacks on a party's credibility have particular weight when supported by a law firm which includes a lawyer who previously represented defendant. In light of the fact that the credibility of the parties is at issue in this case, the Court finds that the decision by Wenig, Ginsberg, Saltiel & Greene to vouch for defendant Nicholas Gordon's lack of credibility is sufficient to merit disqualification.

Accordingly, the motion to disqualify Wenig, Ginsberg, Saltiel & Greene is granted. All pending motions will be re-calendered for February 18, 2005. The Court's Order dated November 19, 2004, remains in effect.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

______________________________

J.S.C.

APPEARANCES

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Wenig Ginsberg Saltiel & Greene LLP

26 Court Street, Suite 502

Brooklyn, NY 11242

PRIOR ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Lanin & Moses

1065 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1802

New York, NY 10018