Justice Martin Schoenfeld
Sanders Construction appealed from a Civil Court order granting Celi Electrical Lighting’s motion to disqualify law firm Morelli Ratner PC from representing Sanders, but only to the extent of disqualifying counsel from representing Sanders. The panel opined if the court abused its discretion in granting Celi’s motion by disqualifying the firm from continuing to represent Sanders. It concluded that under the circumstances of the instant matter, Celi’s motion should have been denied “in toto.” Sanders was a contractor on a renovation project, and the Morelli defendants were husband and wife who owned the home being renovated. All defendants were represented by the firm, and Celi claimed the interests of Morelli and Sanders “will be at odds” as the Morellis lacked privity with Celi, and Sanders would be left solely responsible for Celi’s damages if the Morellis succeed on their claim. Defendants alleged no conflict existed as their positions were aligned. The panel found Celi lacked standing to seek the firm’s disqualification, ruling disqualification was not justified on the merits as defendants appeared to be presenting a unified defense and any potential conflict was speculative. It modified the order denying Celi’s motion to disqualify defense counsel in its entirety.
