Mills v. Santos
Docket Index No. 35466/20|Appeal No. 6532|Case No. 2025-00326|
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
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02786
- Docket numbers
- Index No35466/20Appeal No6532Case No2025-00326
Appeal from an order denying defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel in a personal-injury action.
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx Supreme Court order denying defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, the Grigoropoulos Law Group (GLG). The dispute arose from GLG's brief, joint-retainer representation of both plaintiff and defendant Santos after a 2019 motor vehicle accident; GLG later withdrew from representing Santos and continued for the plaintiff. The court found defendants had waived any conflict by delaying three years to move for disqualification, that the signed conflict waiver adequately informed both clients of potential adverse positions, and there was no evidence confidential information obtained from Santos was used to the defendants' prejudice.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendants were entitled to disqualify plaintiff's counsel (GLG) based on a purported conflict of interest arising from GLG's brief joint representation of plaintiff and defendant Santos.
- Whether the conflict waiver signed by both clients was sufficient to permit GLG to represent plaintiff after withdrawing from representing Santos.
- Whether defendants waived the right to seek disqualification by delaying approximately three years before moving.
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that defendants waited about three years to seek disqualification and thus waived any conflict objection. It relied on the signed, detailed notice and waiver that informed both clients of potential conflicts and of GLG's right to withdraw if interests became adverse, making the waiver effective. Finally, there was no proof that GLG or the plaintiff used any confidential information obtained during the brief representation of Santos, so disqualification was not required to protect client confidences.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Coast Mar. Co. Ltd. v Holland & Knight LLP243 AD3d 468 (1st Dept 2025)
- Sanyang v Davis198 AD3d 522 (1st Dept 2021)
- Consumers Beverages, Inc. v Kavcon Dev. LLC227 AD3d 1381 (4th Dept 2024)
- Patane v Tan188 AD3d 498 (1st Dept 2020)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Carlton Mills
- Defendant
- Jose Santos
- Defendant
- The Sofa Doctor
- Defendant-Appellant
- Jose Santos et al.
- Plaintiff-Respondent
- Carlton Mills
- Attorney
- Grigoropoulos Law Group, PLLC (GLG)
- Judge
- John A. Howard-Algarin
Key Dates
- Accident date
- 2019-02-07
- GLG retained by plaintiff and Santos
- 2019-03-05
- GLG discontinued representation of Santos
- 2019-06-06
- Order appealed entered (approx.)
- 2024-12-24
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-05-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider further appellate review
If defendants believe there is a substantial legal issue, they should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and evaluate timeliness and grounds for review.
- 2
Evaluate case strategy
Parties should coordinate with counsel to assess how the court's decision affects settlement posture, discovery plans, and trial preparation given GLG remains plaintiff's counsel.
- 3
Document and preserve confidences
All parties should ensure any privileged or confidential information is documented and protected; if defendants believe undisclosed misuse exists, they should gather evidence promptly.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed denial of defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiff's law firm, finding the defendants waived the challenge and that the signed waiver and lack of proof of misuse of confidences defeated the motion.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The immediate parties are the plaintiff (Mills), defendant Santos, The Sofa Doctor, and GLG; more broadly, it affects similar conflict-of-interest disputes in New York practice.
- Why didn't the court disqualify the law firm if it briefly represented both sides?
- Because both clients signed a detailed conflict waiver notifying them of potential adverse positions and GLG's right to withdraw, the defendants delayed too long to object, and there was no evidence confidential information was used against Santos.
- Can the defendants appeal this decision further?
- They could seek further review, for example by applying to the Court of Appeals, but success would depend on preserving issues and showing an error of law or significant conflict concerns.
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
Mills v Santos - 2026 NY Slip Op 02786 Mills v Santos 2026 NY Slip Op 02786 May 5, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Carlton Mills, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Jose Santos et al., Defendants-Appellants, Wilver D. Caba et al., Defendants. Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026 Index No. 35466/20|Appeal No. 6532|Case No. 2025-00326| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ. Thomas Torto, New York (Jason Levine of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Howard-Algarin, J.), entered on or about December 24, 2024, which denied defendants' motion to disqualify the Grigoropoulos Law Group, PLLC (GLG) from serving as counsel for plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff's action arises from injuries he allegedly sustained on February 7, 2019, when a motor vehicle operated by defendant Jose Santos and owned by defendant The Sofa Doctor, in which plaintiff was a lawful passenger, came into contact with another vehicle. On March 5, 2019, plaintiff and Santos retained GLG to represent them in connection with the accident. Each party signed a detailed Notice of Potential Conflict of Interest and Waiver of Conflict-Free Counsel, under which GLG reserved the right to withdraw from representing either plaintiff or Santos, or both, if it discovered information that would cause it to believe that it could no longer represent both because of a conflict of interest. On June 6, 2019, GLG discontinued its representation of Santos after it discovered that his position would be adverse to plaintiff, and it decided to solely represent plaintiff. The court properly denied defendants' motion. Defendants waived any conflict of interest by waiting approximately three years to move to disqualify GLG ( see Matter of Coast Mar. Co. Ltd. v Holland & Knight LLP , 243 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2025]). Moreover, defendants were not entitled to disqualify GLG because the waiver was sufficient to inform both plaintiff and Santos of any potential conflicts in having GLG represent them simultaneously ( cf. Sanyang v Davis , 198 AD3d 522, 522 [1st Dept 2021]). The waiver further informed Santos of the possibility that GLG would discontinue representing him should it realize that his interests had become adverse to plaintiff's interests. The absence of any evidence that plaintiff or GLG used confidences gained during GLG's brief representation of Santos also supported denial of the motion ( see Consumers Beverages, Inc. v Kavcon Dev. LLC , 227 AD3d 1381, 1384 [4th Dept 2024]; see also Patane v Tan , 188 AD3d 498, 499 [1st Dept 2020]). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: May 5, 2026