Defendant Park Ave Physicians ("Physicians") moves to disqualify counsel Braverman Greenspun, PC from representing both plaintiff Board of Managers of the 120 East 86th Street Condo ("Condo Board") and one of the Additional Defendants, 120/86 Owners Corp. ("120/86"). Both Condo Board and 120/86 oppose.

The action was commenced by Condo Board against Physicians to recover the cost of repairs made to "Common Elements" of the building. The building is comprised of three separate units: a residential unit, a retail unit, and a professional unit. As described by movant, Condo Board acts as agent for all three units of the building. In defendant's answer, crossclaims and counterclaims were asserted against Condo Board as a whole and 120/86 (the residential unit owner) was added as an "Additional Defendant," despite no allegations being made specifically against 120/86. Braverman Greenspun, PC represents both Condo Board and 120/86.

Movant asserts that this simultaneous representation is improper, pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, because Condo Board and 120/86 have differing interests, now that 120/86 is an Additional Defendant against the cross- and counterclaims (see 22 NYCRR 1200.0, Rule 1.7 (a)(1)). In opposition, Condo Board and 120/86 assert that they have an identical interest in their desire to have Physicians pay the arrears owed to Condo Board. Therefore, it would not be improper for them to have the same counsel. In addition, Condo Board and 120/86 waive any alleged conflict.

While the Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit a lawyer from simultaneously representing clients with differing interests, an attorney may represent such clients where a disinterested lawyer would believe that the lawyer can competently represent the interest of each client and that each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the implications of simultaneous representation as well as the advantages and risks involved (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[b]; see also Ferolito v. Vultaggio, 99 AD3d 19 (2012)).

Here, Condo Board and 120/86 consent to the dual representation, waiving any alleged conflict. Moreover, as represented in their opposition papers, these parties have similar interests, in that they both want defendant to pay the fees in dispute. It is not objectively unreasonable to believe that the same attorney can adequately represent these parties under these circumstances. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify counsel as attorney for both Condo Board and 120/86 is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant Park Ave Physicians' motion to disqualify counsel Braverman Greenspun, PC from representing both Board of Managers of the 120 East 86th Street Condo and 120/86 Owners Corp. is DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.