Maddicks v. 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC
Docket Index No. 656345/16|Appeal No. 6487|Case No. 2025-07823|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Remanded
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02603
- Docket numbers
- Index No656345/16Appeal No6487Case No2025-07823
Appeal from a Supreme Court order denying defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel, compel related discovery, and dismiss the complaint.
Summary
The First Department reviewed a motion in a class-action landlord-tenant case where defendants sought disqualification of plaintiffs' counsel for an alleged conflict arising from counsel's prior representation of several former building owners. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding defendants had waived the conflict claim, and concluded the record was incomplete to decide disqualification. The court therefore ordered plaintiffs' counsel to produce itemized files related to the prior representation so defendants can assess whether an actual conflict exists, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's denial of immediate disqualification and dismissal.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendants waived their right to move to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.
- Whether plaintiffs' counsel must produce files related to its prior representation of former building owners to assess a conflict of interest.
- Whether dismissal of the complaint is warranted based on the alleged conflict without full disclosure of the prior representation.
Court's Reasoning
The appellate court found no evidence that defendants knew or should have known about the alleged conflict earlier, so waiver could not be presumed. Because the record lacked full disclosure about the scope and nature of the prior representations, a decision on disqualification would be premature. Accordingly, the court required production of the counsel's itemized files so the parties and court can properly determine whether an actual conflict exists before deciding disqualification or dismissal.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Marotta v Marotta218 AD3d 468 (2d Dept 2023)
- Hele Asset, LLC v S.E.E. Realty Assoc.106 AD3d 692 (2d Dept 2013)
Parties
- Appellant
- 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC
- Respondent
- Theresa Maddicks, et al.
- Judge
- Sabrina Kraus
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-28
- Lower court order date
- 2025-11-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Produce requested files
Plaintiffs' counsel should compile and provide an itemized production of all files related to their prior representation of the former owners of the buildings as ordered by the court.
- 2
Review production and evaluate conflict
Defendants should review the produced files promptly to determine whether the contents support a renewed motion to disqualify counsel or to seek dismissal.
- 3
Prepare renewed motion if warranted
If the produced documents indicate an actual conflict, defendants should prepare and file a renewed motion for disqualification or dismissal with supporting evidence from the production.
- 4
Consult counsel about privilege and scope
Plaintiffs' counsel should consult with litigation counsel about privilege assertions and any narrowly tailored objections, and propose a protective order if sensitive materials are involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to produce itemized files about their prior representation of former building owners so defendants can assess whether a conflict of interest exists; it did not disqualify counsel or dismiss the case at this time.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Plaintiffs, their counsel, and the defendant building owner entity (and class members) are affected because the disclosure could lead to further motions about counsel's disqualification or changes in the case.
- What happens next in the case?
- Plaintiffs' counsel must produce the requested files for review; after that defendants may move again to disqualify counsel or seek dismissal if the documents show an actual conflict.
- Can this order be appealed further?
- Potentially yes, parties may seek further appellate review if they disagree with future rulings about production or disqualification, subject to appellate jurisdiction and procedural rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Maddicks v 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02603 Maddicks v 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 02603 April 28, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Theresa Maddicks, et al., Respondents, v 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC, et al., Appellants. Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026 Index No. 656345/16|Appeal No. 6487|Case No. 2025-07823| Before: Webber, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. Belkin, Burden, Goldman, LLP, New York (Matthew S. Brett of counsel), for appellants. Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Lucas A. Ferrara of counsel), for respondents. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered November 18, 2025, which denied defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel due to a conflict of interest, require counsel to produce related discovery, and dismiss the complaint based on the conflict, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of requiring plaintiffs' counsel to produce the requested discovery related to the conflict of interest claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The court improperly determined that defendants waived their ability to move for an order to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel. Defendants allege a conflict of interest resulting from plaintiffs' counsel's prior representation of five to seven of the previous owners of the buildings at issue in this class action proceeding for rent regulatory violations. The record does not support the finding that defendants knew or should have known of the conflict of interest before the instant motion was made ( see Matter of Marotta v Marotta , 218 AD3d 468, 471 [2d Dept 2023]; Hele Asset, LLC v S.E.E. Realty Assoc. , 106 AD3d 692, 694 [2d Dept 2013]). The record is devoid of evidence that prior discovery requests and orders encompassed the documents that defendants only recently reviewed and which revealed the alleged conflict. Nor does the record show that had there been proper compliance with the discovery requests and orders, evidence of the alleged conflict would have been discovered at that time. Here, as the full record concerning the nature of the prior representation has not been disclosed, a ruling deciding the conflict issue is premature. As such , defendants' motion should be granted to the extent it seeks plaintiffs' counsel's itemized production of all files concerning its prior representation in connection with the buildings, as a review of those documents is necessary for the proper assessment of whether there is an actual conflict of interest warranting disqualification or dismissal of the complaint. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 28, 2026