Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re the Estate of Epstein
Citations: 255 A.D.2d 582; 680 N.Y.S.2d 655; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12890
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 29, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court
Sonia Mauthner appeals two orders from the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, both dated December 15, 1997. The first order denied her motion to disqualify the law firm Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnowsky, Armentano, P.C. from representing Peter R. Epstein in the final accounting of his father Felix Epstein's estate. The second order similarly denied her motion to disqualify the firm from representing Peter in the intermediate accounting of a testamentary trust. Felix Epstein passed away in 1994, leaving his estate to his son Peter, who was appointed executor and trustee for a trust benefiting their mother, Gertrude Epstein. Mauthner had a brief 1994 consultation with attorney Michael Feigenbaum regarding her interest in the estate but did not retain him. In 1997, Gertrude hired Feigenbaum without knowing of his previous contact with Sonia. Around the same time, Farrell Fritz consulted with Feigenbaum on a tax arrangement involving early distributions from the trust. After learning of Feigenbaum's representation of Gertrude, Mauthner requested both Feigenbaum and Farrell Fritz to withdraw, claiming potential disclosure of confidential information from her 1994 consultation. Feigenbaum voluntarily withdrew to avoid impropriety but indicated he had no memory of Mauthner’s consultation. Farrell Fritz refused to withdraw, asserting no conflict of interest existed. Mauthner argued for disqualification based on the appearance of impropriety. The court noted that disqualification requires proof of a prior attorney-client relationship, that the matters are substantially related, and that the interests of the clients are materially adverse. The court found that Mauthner did not have a prior relationship with Farrell Fritz, and there was no evidence that any confidential information had been shared that warranted disqualification. The court upheld the discretion exercised by the lower court, affirming the orders with costs payable by Mauthner.