ESTATE OF ESMERALDO OLMO, Deceased

ESTATE OF ESMERALDO OLMO, Deceased (614/13) — Oshrie Zak, Esq., the attorney who was disqualified from serving as counsel for one son who is petitioning for letters of administration (see Matter of Olmo, NYLJ, Aug. 2, 2013, at 22, col 5), moves for an order: (1) vacating the court’s prior decision and order dated July 25, 2013 disqualifying him as counsel for that son; (2) granting reargument and renewal and placing the matter down for a hearing on the prior disqualification motion; and, (3) disqualifying Lorraine Coyle, Esq. as counsel for another son who is crosspetitioning for letters administration. The motion is opposed by Ms. Coyle.

In his motion, Mr. Zak asserts, inter alia, that at the time of the prior motion seeking to disqualify him, he believed a hearing would be held so he mistakenly submitted an opposing affirmation with limited facts. He contends that a full hearing is required on what was disclosed by Ms. Coyle regarding her client and what information was conveyed to him by Michael Lippman Esq. He asserts there is no evidence of a working relationship between Ms. Coyle and Mr. Lippman sufficient to warrant disqualification, and there is no allegation that, in fact, Mr. Lippman shared confidential information. in addition, Mr. Zak annexes a letter dated August 13, 2013 sent by Ms. Coyle to his former client which encloses a copy of this court’s decision and order disqualifying him. Essentially, Mr. Zak argues that Ms. Coyle violated disciplinary rules in sending the letter which embodies a proposed settlement and contains an offer by Ms. Coyle to meet with Mr. Zak’s former client, either alone or with the cross petitioner, in an attempt to resolve the matter if he does not wish to incur the expense of retaining new counsel. Finally, Mr. Zak asserts that should this court adhere to its July 25, 2013 decision and order disqualifying him, them Ms. Coyle should be disqualified as well as he, Ms. Coyle and their clients do not have adverse interests, In support he notes that the clients are siblings who are each entitled to one-quarter of the estate and Ms. Coyle’s client was prejudiced to the same degree as his client by her prior consultation with Mr. Lippman.