Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ARENT FOX LLP, INDEX NO. 151654/2018
(Motion Sequence No. 3)
Plaintiff,
-against-
JDN AA, LLC d/b/a AUDI/NEWTON,
SUBARU 46 LLC, AND DCN AUTOMOTIVE
LLC,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
Michael S. Cryan, Esq.
Melissa Trenk, Esq.
ARENT FOX LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, New York 10019
Tel: 212-484-3900
Fax: 212-484-3990
michael.cryan@arentfox.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AFDOCS/16820318.2
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 4
I. THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD BE GRANTED AS
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL POSSESS UNIQUE, NEEDED TESTIMONY ON
HIGHLY RELEVANT ISSUES REGARDING THE UNDERLYING LEGAL
STRATEGY AND LEGAL WORK OF PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM .................................. 4
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 6
i
AFDOCS/16820318.2
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Fernandes v. Jamron,
9 AD3d 379 [2nd Dept 2004] ....................................................................................................4
Foley v. Foley,
123 AD3d 973 [2nd Dept 2014] ................................................................................................4
USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Assocs., Inc.,
147 AD3d 697 [1st Dept 2017]..................................................................................................5
Statutes
N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 1.7 .................................................................4
N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 1.9 .................................................................4
N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 3.7 .................................................................4
N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 7.5 .................................................................4
ii
AFDOCS/16820318.2
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Arent Fox LLP (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in
support of its motion to disqualify counsel (Brach Eichler, LLP, “Defendants’ Counsel”) for
defendants JDN AA, LLC d/b/a/ Audi Newton (“JDN”), Subaru 46 LLC (“Subaru 46”), and
DCN Automotive, LLC (“DCN” and, together with JDN and Subaru 46, “Defendants”).
Defendants’ Counsel are clearly necessary witnesses in this case, having worked closely
with Plaintiff law firm in the underlying representation and having exchanged at least 99
privileged communications with Plaintiff law firm about the underlying representation. Indeed,
Defendants’ Counsel’s testimony will necessarily be powerfully corroborative of the fact that
Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying
representation and thus Defendants’ Counsel will be extremely crucial witnesses at the trial of
this action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action by Plaintiff law firm to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses due and
owing by its former clients, Defendants, based on Plaintiff law firm’s representation of them (see
Amended Compl. ¶ 1, Doc. 20). The complaint sets forth causes of action for breach of contract,
account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel (see Amended
Compl. ¶¶ 19-58).
Defendants’ Counsel before this Court worked closely with Plaintiff law firm in the
underlying representation (Affidavit of Russell P. McRory sworn to on January 7, 2019
(“McRory Aff.”), ¶ 4). Defendants’ Counsel were privy to the internal, attorney-client privileged
analysis of Plaintiff law firm (id., ¶¶ 4-15). Defendants’ Counsel exchanged at least 99 privileged
AFDOCS/16820318.2
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
communications with Plaintiff law firm about the underlying representation (id., ¶ 15).
Defendants’ Counsel are clearly necessary witnesses in this case (id., ¶ 18).
Plaintiff law firm worked closely with Rosaria Suriano of the firm of Brach Eichler LLP,
as well as Mark Fantin and other attorneys of that firm (id., ¶ 4). Brach Eichler LLP also served
as counsel to Defendants in the underlying representation of Defendants (id.).
Significantly, Ms. Suriano and Mr. Fantin were previously at Meyner and Landis (id., ¶
5). Russ McRory, currently a partner at plaintiff law firm, was previously a partner at the firm of
Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., where he also represented
Defendants (id., ¶ 6). Mr. McRory worked closely with Ms. Suriano both while he was at
Plaintiff law firm and previously while he was at a partner at the firm of Robinson Brog
Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., including while Ms. Suriano was at Meyner and
Landis and later while she was at Brach Eichler, with respect to the underlying representation of
Defendants (id.).
Plaintiff law firm communicated extensively, including by email and telephone, with
Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 9). Defendants’ Counsel were acutely aware of the legal strategies
Plaintiff law firm effectuated for Defendants because Plaintiff law firm communicated
extensively with Defendants’ Counsel about legal strategy in the underlying representation (id.,
¶ 10).
Defendants’ Counsel – including Ms. Suriano and Mr. Fantin – never expressed
disagreement or dissatisfaction with the legal work by Plaintiff law firm in the underlying
representation (id., ¶ 11). To the contrary, Defendants’ Counsel – including Ms. Suriano and Mr.
Fantin – expressed satisfaction and agreement with the legal work by Plaintiff law firm in the
underlying representation (id., ¶ 12).
AFDOCS/16820318.2 2
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
Plaintiff law firm and Defendants’ Counsel exchanged at least 99 privileged emails
regarding the legal work by Plaintiff law firm on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying
representation (id., ¶ 15).
The communications from Defendants’ Counsel are powerfully corroborative of the fact
that Defendants’ Counsel knew that Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on
Defendants’ behalf in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 17).
In order to present the evidence at issue in this action, Rosaria Suriano, Mark Fantin and
other attorneys at the firm of Brach Eichler LLP will be important, material witnesses in proving
that Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying
representation and in negating any affirmative defenses Defendants may seek to prove (id., ¶ 18).
Testimony by Defendants’ Counsel is needed because Defendants’ Counsel possess
unique and independent knowledge of the Plaintiff law firm’s work because Defendants’
Counsel participated in privileged telephone calls and emails with the Plaintiff law firm on which
no other representative of Defendants participated (id., ¶ 20).
The significance of these matters cannot be overstated, going to the heart of the legal
strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm and should be accorded even more weight as
Defendants’ Counsel were presumably qualified to appreciate the value of the legal strategy and
legal work by Plaintiff law firm (id., ¶ 21).
Defendants also failed to pay Meyner and Landis for legal services and for this additional
reason Ms. Suriano is a necessary witness in the case at bar (id., ¶ 7).
No other source of testimony can replicate these facts as they are in the exclusive
knowledge of Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 22).
AFDOCS/16820318.2 3
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
Before filing this motion, Plaintiff law firm sought to meet and confer with Defendants’
Counsel (see Affirmation of Michael S. Cryan dated January 7, 2019 (“Cryan Aff.”)). Plaintiff
law firm sent an email dated November 1, 2018, and letters dated December 3 and 19, 2018 to
Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶¶ 2-4). Plaintiff law firm also suggested to confer by telephone with
Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 5). At no time has Defendants’ Counsel explained their position, or
their failure and refusal to meet and confer.
ARGUMENT
I. THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD BE GRANTED AS DEFENDANTS’
COUNSEL POSSESS UNIQUE, NEEDED TESTIMONY ON HIGHLY
RELEVANT ISSUES REGARDING THE UNDERLYING LEGAL STRATEGY
AND LEGAL WORK OF PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM
New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct suggest disqualification under certain
conditions (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0]). For example, Rule 3.7,
“Lawyer as Witness,” suggests disqualification if “the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a
significant issue of fact.” Rule 3.7 also disqualifies an attorney if another lawyer in the firm is
likely to be called as a witness and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the
client, or the lawyer is precluded from representation by Rule 1 .7 or Rule 1.9. Rule 1.7, entitled
“Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,” prohibits an attorney from representing a client if a
reasonable lawyer would conclude that the representation will involve the lawyer representing
differing interests or there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment will be
adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property or other personal interests.
Defendants’ Counsel and their law firm should be disqualified on the ground of a conflict
of interest (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.7, 7.5; Foley v. Foley,
123 AD3d 973, 973 [2nd Dept 2014]), and because the defendant's counsel is needed to testify as
a witness in this action (see Foley v. Foley, 123 A.D.3d at 973; Fernandes v. Jamron, 9 AD3d
AFDOCS/16820318.2 4
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
379, 380 [2nd Dept 2004]). “The question whether there is a conflict of interest must be resolved
in favor of disqualification.” USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Assocs., Inc., 147
AD3d 697, 697 [1st Dept 2017].
Here, testimony by Defendants’ Counsel is needed because Defendants’ Counsel possess
unique and independent knowledge of the Plaintiff law firm’s work because Defendants’
Counsel participated in privileged telephone calls and emails with the Plaintiff law firm on which
no other representative of Defendants participated (see supra pp. 1-4). The significance of these
matters cannot be overstated, going to the heart of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff
law firm and should be accorded even more weight as Defendants’ Counsel were presumably
qualified to appreciate the value of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm. At
least 99 privileged emails were exchanged between Plaintiff law firm and Defendants’ Counsel
and many telephone calls just between the attorneys were held as shown by the McRory
Affidavit and Exhibits A and B to the McRory Affidavit. No other source of testimony can
replicate these facts as they are in the exclusive knowledge of Defendants’ Counsel. Id.
AFDOCS/16820318.2 5
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Defendants’ Counsel
(Brach Eichler, LLP) should, respectfully, be granted.
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,
January 8, 2019
By:
Michael S. Cryan, Esq.
Melissa Trenk, Esq.
ARENT FOX LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor
New York, New York 10019
Tel: (212) 484-3900
Fax: (212) 484-3990
michael.cryan@arentfox.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TO: Mark A. Fantin, Esq.
Rosaria Suriano, Esq.
Anthony Rainone, Esq.
BRACH EICHLER LLC
101 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Attorneys for Defendants
AFDOCS/16820318.2 6
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ARENT FOX LLP, INDEX NO. 151654/2018 (Motion Sequence No. 3) Plaintiff, -against- JDN AA, LLC d/b/a AUDI/NEWTON, SUBARU 46 LLC, AND DCN AUTOMOTIVE LLC, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Michael S. Cryan, Esq. Melissa Trenk, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas 42nd Floor New York, New York 10019 Tel: 212-484-3900 Fax: 212-484-3990 michael.cryan@arentfox.com Attorneys for Plaintiff AFDOCS/16820318.2 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 4 I. THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD BE GRANTED AS DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL POSSESS UNIQUE, NEEDED TESTIMONY ON HIGHLY RELEVANT ISSUES REGARDING THE UNDERLYING LEGAL STRATEGY AND LEGAL WORK OF PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM .................................. 4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 6 i AFDOCS/16820318.2 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Fernandes v. Jamron, 9 AD3d 379 [2nd Dept 2004] ....................................................................................................4 Foley v. Foley, 123 AD3d 973 [2nd Dept 2014] ................................................................................................4 USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Assocs., Inc., 147 AD3d 697 [1st Dept 2017]..................................................................................................5 Statutes N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 1.7 .................................................................4 N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 1.9 .................................................................4 N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 3.7 .................................................................4 N.Y. R. of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0], rule 7.5 .................................................................4 ii AFDOCS/16820318.2 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Arent Fox LLP (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion to disqualify counsel (Brach Eichler, LLP, “Defendants’ Counsel”) for defendants JDN AA, LLC d/b/a/ Audi Newton (“JDN”), Subaru 46 LLC (“Subaru 46”), and DCN Automotive, LLC (“DCN” and, together with JDN and Subaru 46, “Defendants”). Defendants’ Counsel are clearly necessary witnesses in this case, having worked closely with Plaintiff law firm in the underlying representation and having exchanged at least 99 privileged communications with Plaintiff law firm about the underlying representation. Indeed, Defendants’ Counsel’s testimony will necessarily be powerfully corroborative of the fact that Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying representation and thus Defendants’ Counsel will be extremely crucial witnesses at the trial of this action. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is an action by Plaintiff law firm to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses due and owing by its former clients, Defendants, based on Plaintiff law firm’s representation of them (see Amended Compl. ¶ 1, Doc. 20). The complaint sets forth causes of action for breach of contract, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel (see Amended Compl. ¶¶ 19-58). Defendants’ Counsel before this Court worked closely with Plaintiff law firm in the underlying representation (Affidavit of Russell P. McRory sworn to on January 7, 2019 (“McRory Aff.”), ¶ 4). Defendants’ Counsel were privy to the internal, attorney-client privileged analysis of Plaintiff law firm (id., ¶¶ 4-15). Defendants’ Counsel exchanged at least 99 privileged AFDOCS/16820318.2 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 communications with Plaintiff law firm about the underlying representation (id., ¶ 15). Defendants’ Counsel are clearly necessary witnesses in this case (id., ¶ 18). Plaintiff law firm worked closely with Rosaria Suriano of the firm of Brach Eichler LLP, as well as Mark Fantin and other attorneys of that firm (id., ¶ 4). Brach Eichler LLP also served as counsel to Defendants in the underlying representation of Defendants (id.). Significantly, Ms. Suriano and Mr. Fantin were previously at Meyner and Landis (id., ¶ 5). Russ McRory, currently a partner at plaintiff law firm, was previously a partner at the firm of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., where he also represented Defendants (id., ¶ 6). Mr. McRory worked closely with Ms. Suriano both while he was at Plaintiff law firm and previously while he was at a partner at the firm of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., including while Ms. Suriano was at Meyner and Landis and later while she was at Brach Eichler, with respect to the underlying representation of Defendants (id.). Plaintiff law firm communicated extensively, including by email and telephone, with Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 9). Defendants’ Counsel were acutely aware of the legal strategies Plaintiff law firm effectuated for Defendants because Plaintiff law firm communicated extensively with Defendants’ Counsel about legal strategy in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 10). Defendants’ Counsel – including Ms. Suriano and Mr. Fantin – never expressed disagreement or dissatisfaction with the legal work by Plaintiff law firm in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 11). To the contrary, Defendants’ Counsel – including Ms. Suriano and Mr. Fantin – expressed satisfaction and agreement with the legal work by Plaintiff law firm in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 12). AFDOCS/16820318.2 2 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 Plaintiff law firm and Defendants’ Counsel exchanged at least 99 privileged emails regarding the legal work by Plaintiff law firm on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 15). The communications from Defendants’ Counsel are powerfully corroborative of the fact that Defendants’ Counsel knew that Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying representation (id., ¶ 17). In order to present the evidence at issue in this action, Rosaria Suriano, Mark Fantin and other attorneys at the firm of Brach Eichler LLP will be important, material witnesses in proving that Plaintiff law firm provided outstanding legal work on Defendants’ behalf in the underlying representation and in negating any affirmative defenses Defendants may seek to prove (id., ¶ 18). Testimony by Defendants’ Counsel is needed because Defendants’ Counsel possess unique and independent knowledge of the Plaintiff law firm’s work because Defendants’ Counsel participated in privileged telephone calls and emails with the Plaintiff law firm on which no other representative of Defendants participated (id., ¶ 20). The significance of these matters cannot be overstated, going to the heart of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm and should be accorded even more weight as Defendants’ Counsel were presumably qualified to appreciate the value of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm (id., ¶ 21). Defendants also failed to pay Meyner and Landis for legal services and for this additional reason Ms. Suriano is a necessary witness in the case at bar (id., ¶ 7). No other source of testimony can replicate these facts as they are in the exclusive knowledge of Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 22). AFDOCS/16820318.2 3 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 Before filing this motion, Plaintiff law firm sought to meet and confer with Defendants’ Counsel (see Affirmation of Michael S. Cryan dated January 7, 2019 (“Cryan Aff.”)). Plaintiff law firm sent an email dated November 1, 2018, and letters dated December 3 and 19, 2018 to Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶¶ 2-4). Plaintiff law firm also suggested to confer by telephone with Defendants’ Counsel (id., ¶ 5). At no time has Defendants’ Counsel explained their position, or their failure and refusal to meet and confer. ARGUMENT I. THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD BE GRANTED AS DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL POSSESS UNIQUE, NEEDED TESTIMONY ON HIGHLY RELEVANT ISSUES REGARDING THE UNDERLYING LEGAL STRATEGY AND LEGAL WORK OF PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct suggest disqualification under certain conditions (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0]). For example, Rule 3.7, “Lawyer as Witness,” suggests disqualification if “the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact.” Rule 3.7 also disqualifies an attorney if another lawyer in the firm is likely to be called as a witness and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client, or the lawyer is precluded from representation by Rule 1 .7 or Rule 1.9. Rule 1.7, entitled “Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,” prohibits an attorney from representing a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that the representation will involve the lawyer representing differing interests or there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property or other personal interests. Defendants’ Counsel and their law firm should be disqualified on the ground of a conflict of interest (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.7, 7.5; Foley v. Foley, 123 AD3d 973, 973 [2nd Dept 2014]), and because the defendant's counsel is needed to testify as a witness in this action (see Foley v. Foley, 123 A.D.3d at 973; Fernandes v. Jamron, 9 AD3d AFDOCS/16820318.2 4 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 379, 380 [2nd Dept 2004]). “The question whether there is a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification.” USA Recycling, Inc. v. Baldwin Endico Realty Assocs., Inc., 147 AD3d 697, 697 [1st Dept 2017]. Here, testimony by Defendants’ Counsel is needed because Defendants’ Counsel possess unique and independent knowledge of the Plaintiff law firm’s work because Defendants’ Counsel participated in privileged telephone calls and emails with the Plaintiff law firm on which no other representative of Defendants participated (see supra pp. 1-4). The significance of these matters cannot be overstated, going to the heart of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm and should be accorded even more weight as Defendants’ Counsel were presumably qualified to appreciate the value of the legal strategy and legal work by Plaintiff law firm. At least 99 privileged emails were exchanged between Plaintiff law firm and Defendants’ Counsel and many telephone calls just between the attorneys were held as shown by the McRory Affidavit and Exhibits A and B to the McRory Affidavit. No other source of testimony can replicate these facts as they are in the exclusive knowledge of Defendants’ Counsel. Id. AFDOCS/16820318.2 5 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 151654/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2019 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Defendants’ Counsel (Brach Eichler, LLP) should, respectfully, be granted. Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, January 8, 2019 By: Michael S. Cryan, Esq. Melissa Trenk, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 484-3900 Fax: (212) 484-3990 michael.cryan@arentfox.com Attorneys for Plaintiff TO: Mark A. Fantin, Esq. Rosaria Suriano, Esq. Anthony Rainone, Esq. BRACH EICHLER LLC 101 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorneys for Defendants AFDOCS/16820318.2 6 9 of 9