Messina v. MessinaMessina v. Messina
— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated January 30, 1991, which granted the defen
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.
The defendant wife moved to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm, Slater, Vanderpool & Breakstone, on the ground that the predecessor firm of Mr. Vanderpool served as the parties’ “family attorney” during the marriage. Specifically, the wife alleged that Mr. Vanderpool represented her and her husband in the purchase of the marital residence in 1984, and she implies that the predecessor firm provided representation in other unspecified matters as well. However, the record only demonstrates the single representation for the purchase of the marital residence in 1984.
There is no dispute between the parties that the marital residence is property of the marriage. Additionally, Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) requires financial disclosure by the parties in a matrimonial action, and the wife has not alleged any actual misuse by the husband’s counsel of any confidences related to the subject matter of the matrimonial action (see, Cardinale v Golinello,