In Van Ryn v. Goland, 189 A.D.3d 1749 (3d Dept. 2020), plaintiff moved to disqualify his wife’s counsel, with whom plaintiff never had a prior attorney-client relationship, based on a potential conflict of interest between the wife and her counsel. In essence, in contravention of the general prohibition against a party’s raising the rights of another in litigation plaintiff was asserting his wife’s rights. The Third Department, nevertheless, addressed plaintiff’s claims on the merits without any mention of the prohibition.

The right to be represented by counsel of choice. “Disqualification of counsel conflicts with the general policy favoring a party’s right to representation by counsel of choice, and it deprives current clients of an attorney familiar with the particular matter.” Tekni-Plex v. Meyner and Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 131-32 (1996). “Disqualification of a law firm during litigation implicates not only the ethics of the profession but also the substantive rights of the litigants. Disqualification denies a party’s right to representation by the attorney of its choice. The right to counsel of choice is not absolute and may be overridden where necessary—for example, to protect a compelling public interest—but it is a valued right and any restrictions must be carefully scrutinized.” S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 443 (1987).