In the past 10 years, judiciary Law 487 claims have become more and more popular. Weaver v Hatem 2025 NY Slip Op 04931 Decided on September 10, 2025
Appellate Division, Second Department is an example of such a claim being denied with little comment.

“In September 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action against Albert A. Hatem, Grace Edwards-Simon, Anfernee Simon, Marlene Dennis, and Tracy Pardo, the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Civil Term, and another defendant, asserting causes of action alleging violations of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 and negligence. The plaintiff also asserted a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487(1) against only Hatem. The plaintiff alleged that his right to privacy was violated when Edwards-Simon and her son, Simon (hereinafter together the Simon defendants), took photographs of the plaintiff without his permission at certain real property located in the Bronx that was the subject of an adverse possession action. The plaintiff alleged that Hatem filed an order to show cause in the Office of the Bronx County Clerk and attached thereto an affirmation and an affidavit that contained false statements, as well as the photographs. The plaintiff sought damages and to direct Pardo to expunge the submissions attached to the order [*2]to show cause.

In November 2019, Pardo moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. In December 2019, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to disqualify Hatem from representing the Simon defendants in this action. In July 2020, Hatem and the Simon defendants cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted Pardo’s motion and the unopposed cross-motion of Hatem and the Simon defendants and denied, as academic, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff appeals.”

“The Supreme Court properly denied, as academic, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to disqualify Hatem from representing the Simon defendants in this action. “[A] party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s lawyer must prove: (1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel [or a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated], (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse” (Sentry at QB, LLC v Xi Hui Wu, 219 AD3d 649, 650 [internal quotation marks omitted]). When a firm sought to be disqualified has never represented the moving party, that firm owes “no duty to that party” and “it follows that if there is no duty owed there can be no duty breached” (Ellison v Chartis Claims, Inc., 142 AD3d 487, 488 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sentry at QB, LLC v Xi Hui Wu, 219 AD3d at 650). Here, it is undisputed that Hatem never represented the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff was not a present or a former client of Hatem, the plaintiff lacked standing to seek Hatem’s disqualification on the basis of a conflict of interest (see Sentry at QB, LLC v Xi Hui Wu, 219 AD3d at 650). Moreover, as Hatem withdrew from representing the Simon defendants and was never representing any other defendant, the court properly determined that the issue was academic.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, need not be reached in light of our determination, or concern matter dehors the record.”