Case Name: Barbara Fleigelman, Appellant, v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Elizabeth Brophy, Appellant, v. Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-11-10
Citations: 255 A.D.2d 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barbara Fleigelman, Appellant, v Eli Lilly & Co. et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Elizabeth Brophy, Appellant, v Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 255
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
Barbara Fleigelman, Appellant, v Eli Lilly & Co. et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Elizabeth Brophy, Appellant, v Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
[679 NYS2d 613]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1998, which, in actions for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to DES, granted the motion of defendant-respondent Eli Lilly & Co. to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the motion court that the 12-attorney law firm representing plaintiffs, where defendant's former attorney of seven years' duration is still employed (cf., Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 313), failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it adopted safeguards adequate to assure against the likelihood that defendant's confidences would be divulged (compare, Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn., 243 AD2d 191, lv granted 253 AD2d 1004). There are no issues of fact requiring a hearing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.