ASSET ALLIANCE CORPORATION v. ERVINE

The IAS court properly exercised its discretion in denying the petition to disqualify respondent Ervine's counsel in an arbitration proceeding concerning Ervine's purported entitlement to certain sums from Asset under an employment contract. Although counsel for Ervine represents two officers of Asset in an unrelated lawsuit seeking legal fees from a prior entity in which the Asset officers were principals, this representation does not create a conflict. The two matters are entirely distinct and involve wholly unrelated issues. Furthermore, Asset and Ervine are the only parties to the arbitration, and Asset was not a party to the lawsuit for legal fees. Under such circumstances, dual representation and the concomitant potential for conflict does not exist (see, Talvy v. Am. Red Cross, 205 A.D.2d 143, 149, affd 87 N.Y.2d 826).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.