Gerzog v. Goldfarb

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 313, 314, 315, 316, 313-1, 315-1, 322 were read on this motion to DISQUALIFY COUNSEL. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION   Defendant Steven Goldfarb seeks an order disqualifying Plaintiff Ira Gerzog’s lawyer, Mr. Joshua Wurtzel, and his firm Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, based on Goldfarb’s allegations that Wurtzel proposed a secret settlement agreement between co-Defendant Harvey Migden and Gerzog. Specifically, Goldfarb alleges that Wurtzel effectively suggested to Migden that in return for false testimony favorable to Gerzog, Gerzog would not continue to pursue his claims against Migden. The motion is based on the affirmation of Joseph Johnson, Goldfarb’s lawyer, who describes a December 12 conversation with Christopher Skoczen, Migden’s lawyer. According to Johnson, Skoczen shared with him the details of an August 8 conversation with Wurtzel. The relevant portion of Johnson’s affirmation is provided below: During the course of their discussion, Mr. Wurtzel stated words to the effect that so long as Mr. Migden’s testimony supported Mr. Wurtzel’s theory of the case, he would have no reason to keep Mr. Migden in the suit as a party. To me, it sounded like he was suggesting that this should be some sort of motivation for Mr. Migden with respect to how he testified in this matter. Mr. Skoczen then noted to Mr. Wurtzel that Mr. Migden’s testimony would essentially clear him of the claims asserted against him, such that Mr. Wurtzel would have no basis to proceed any further against him in any event. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 299, 7). Skoczen has not offered any affidavit regarding Johnson’s testimony. Wurtzel, in his affirmation, denies Johnson’s characterization of the conversation: I stated that Mr. Gerzog had a strong case against Migden, but would be interested in discussing a settlement that would involve Migden providing relevant documents and truthful and complete testimony…[and that] we would have “no reason” to pursue Migden if we were able to recover against Goldfarb, since our theory was that Goldfarb and Migden were joint tortfeasors and thus liable to Mr. Gerzog for the same damages. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 315,