irrebuttable presumption in New York

2008This rule was later modified to provide that imputed disqualification was not an irrebuttable presumption as it indiscriminately disqualified all members of a law firm (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303 [1994]).

2008The irrebuttable presumption is imposed in order to safeguard client confidences and “to free the former client from any apprehension that” they will be used to the client’s detriment in another matter (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 309 [1994]).

2019The wife's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2019Here, the plaintiff's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner and Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2019The wife's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2019Here, the plaintiff's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner and Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2021If all three prongs of the test are satisfied, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification arises ( see Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d at 78 ; McCutchen v 3 Princesses & AP Trust Dated Feb. 3, 2004 , 138 AD3d 1223, 1226 [2016]).

2019The wife's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2024OCFS's determination not to apply the irrebuttable presumption at petitioner's fair hearing was "not irrational or unreasonable" ( Matter of Transitional Servs. of N.Y. for Long Is., Inc. v New York State Off. of Mental Health , 13 NY3d 801, 802 [2009]).

2024OCFS's determination not to apply the irrebuttable presumption at petitioner's fair hearing was "not irrational or unreasonable" ( Matter of Transitional Servs. of N.Y. for Long Is., Inc. v New York State Off. of Mental Health , 13 NY3d 801, 802 [2009]).

2021If all three prongs of the test are satisfied, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification arises ( see Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d at 78 ; McCutchen v 3 Princesses & AP Trust Dated Feb. 3, 2004 , 138 AD3d 1223, 1226 [2016]).

2017When the moving party is able to demonstrate each of these factors, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification follows (see McCutchen v 3 Princesses & AP Trust Dated Feb. 3, 2004, 138 AD3d 1223, 1226 [2016]; Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 94, 98 [2008]).

2008Rather than applying the universal truth standard articulated in Vlandis v Kline (supra), the Court explicitly noted “[w]e apply . . . the ordinary ‘rational relationship’ test,” finding that the statute “pursue[d] a legitimate end by rational means.” (Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US at 131 .) The decline of the doctrine is further evidenced by the fact that, since 1973, the Supreme Court has not explicitly invalidated a statute under Vlandis v Kline (supra; see Department of Agriculture v Murry, 413 US 508 [1973]; see also Brennan v Stewart, 834 F2d 1248 [5th Cir 1988] [arguing that the irrebu

1984The instant case presents neither a classification adopted as an administrative device to serve as evidence of another classification (see Bell v Burson, 402 US 535 ; Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441 ; United States Dept. of Agric. v Murry, 413 US 508 ) nor the application of a procedure implicating the fundamental interests of affected individuals such as custody of children (Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645 ) or the freedom of choice in matters of marriage and family life (Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v LaFleur, 414 US 632 ) — the traditional contexts in which the irrebuttable presumption doctrine has be

2019The wife's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2019Here, the plaintiff's showing satisfied all three of the relevant factors, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification ( see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner and Landis , 89 NY2d at 131 ; see also Falk v Chittenden , 11 NY3d 73 ; Kassis v Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn. , 93 NY2d 611 ; Matter of Rovner v Rantzer , 145 AD3d at 1017 ; Halberstam v Halberstam , 122 AD3d 679, 679-680 ; Albert Jacobs, LLP v Parker , 94 AD3d 919, 919 ).

2018"Although our Legislature has provided an avenue to avoid factual disputes essentially by creating an irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy where the prerequisites of the statute are met" ( Laura WW. v Peter WW., 51 AD3d 211, 217 ), those prerequisites were not met here.

2016Although our Legislature has provided an avenue to avoid factual disputes essentially by creating an irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy where the prerequisites of the statute are met (see Domestic Relations Law § 73), the need for a rebut-table presumption also clearly exists, especially so in light of the evidence that medical personnel who conduct AID procedures are not always aware of statutory consent requirements” (Laura WW. v Peter WW., 51 AD3d at 217 [citations omitted]).

2020The right to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing " will not supercede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted'" ( Gjoni v Swan Club, Inc. , 134 AD3d at 897 , quoting Matter of Marvin Q. , 45 AD3d 852, 853 ). "[D]oubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest are resolved in favor of disqualification in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety" ( Janczewski v Janczewski , 169 AD3d 773 , 774).

2017Any doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification (see Gjoni v Swan Club, Inc., 134 AD3d 896, 897 [2015]; Halberstam v Halberstam, 122 AD3d 679 [2014]; Sperr v Gordon L.

2017When the moving party is able to demonstrate each of these factors, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification follows (see McCutchen v 3 Princesses & AP Trust Dated Feb. 3, 2004, 138 AD3d 1223, 1226 [2016]; Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 94, 98 [2008]).

2016If “the moving party is able to demonstrate each of these factors, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification follows” (Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d at 98 ; see Falk v Chittenden, 11 NY3d at 78 ; Jamaica Pub.

2008For the following reasons, we find that the statute does not create an irrebuttable presumption as that term was defined in Vlandis v Kline (supra), and that the presumption created in the statute is permissible and comports with the Federal and State Constitutions.

2008The Irrebuttable Presumption Doctrine The irrebuttable presumption doctrine, developed by the Supreme Court in Vlandis v Kline (supra), Bell v Bur son ( 402 US 535 [1971]), and Stanley v Illinois ( 405 US 645 [1972]), provides that a statute cannot confer or deny a right based on a classification that is not universally true, unless the State provides a means of rebutting the presumption with competent evidence.

2018Nonetheless, Domestic Relations Law § 73 was not intended to be the exclusive means to establish the parentage of a child born through artificial insemination of a donor ( see Matter of Christopher YY. v Jessica ZZ., _____ AD3d _____, 2018 NY Slip Op 00495, *10 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Kelly S. v Farah M., 139 AD3d 90, 102-104 ; Laura WW. v Peter WW., 51 AD3d at 214-215 ).

2016In this regard, “[i]t is well settled that an attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” (Matter of Strasser, 129 AD3d 457, 458 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Rose Ocko Found. v Liebovitz, 155 AD2d 426, 427 [1989]).

2016In this regard, “[i]t is well settled that an attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” (Matter of Strasser, 129 AD3d 457, 458 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Rose Ocko Found. v Liebovitz, 155 AD2d 426, 427 [1989]).