Rosenthal v Gordon
Annotate this CaseDecided 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
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.