DECISION & ORDER In accordance with CPLR 2219(a), the decision herein is made upon consideration of all papers filed by the parties in NYSCEF in connection with Plaintiff’s motion (Seq. No. 2) seeking an order disqualifying the law firm of Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf and Carrone, LLP (“Abrams Fensterman”) as counsel for Defendant based on conflicts of interest and improper disqualifying conduct. Oral argument on the motion was heard before the Court virtually via Microsoft Teams on January 25, 2023. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED. In this action, Plaintiff seeks compensation for alleged personal injuries suffered during a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on November 13, 2020, when Plaintiff was allegedly struck by Defendant’s vehicle on East 169th Street in the Bronx, New York, while Plaintiff was riding his bicycle. Plaintiff allegedly suffered multiple fractures to his lumbar spine and tears in his knees requiring bilateral knee surgery. I. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Plaintiff now moves to disqualify Abrams Fensterman from its continued representation of Defendant in this action on multiple grounds. Plaintiff relies on Rules 1.7 and 4.2 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”). As allegedly applicable here, Rule 1.7 provides that a “lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that…the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests.” 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 1200, R. 1.7(a)(1), available at https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/jointappellate/NY-Rules-Prof-Conduct-1200.pdf. And, as allegedly applicable here, Rule 4.2 provides that, “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representations with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter.” Id., R. 4.2(a). As the first ground for disqualification, Plaintiff contends that Abrams Fensterman’s simultaneous representation of (a) Defendant’s insurance carrier, Global Liberty Insurance Company (“GLIC”), in Plaintiff’s claim for first-party (i.e., no-fault) benefits and (b) Defendant in this personal-injury action creates a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. The facts on which Plaintiff relies are as follows: On December 14, 2020, after this action was initiated, Plaintiff received a letter from Abrams Fensterman, acting on behalf of GLIC, denying Plaintiff’s no-fault-benefits claim based on the allegedly incorrect assertion that Plaintiff was eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits because the accident occurred while Plaintiff was in the course of his employment. (NYSCEF Doc. 44) Three weeks later, Abrams Fensterman appeared in this action on behalf of Defendant. (See generally NYSCEF docket) On March 11, 2021, after a hearing, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board denied Plaintiff’s claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits on the basis that there was no employee-employer relationship. (Id. Doc. 45) By letter dated March 12, 2021, Plaintiff brought the Board’s decision to Abrams Fensterman’s attention and demanded that it rescind its denial of Plaintiff’s no-fault-benefits claim. (Id.) On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff was copied on a letter sent to his counsel by Abrams Fensterman acting on behalf of GLIC. (Id. Doc. 46) The letter directed Plaintiff to appear for an examination under oath (“EUO”) to, among other things, verify the causal relationship between Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and the accident. (Id.) The letter also informed Plaintiff that his failure to appear at the EUO and fully answer all questions posed thereat may result in the denial of benefits. (Id.) The EUO occurred on May 18, 2021. Counsel from Abrams Fensterman, who questioned Plaintiff, identified himself on record as an attorney with “the law firm that represents the insurance company, [GLIC],” and stated that the examination was “part of [Plaintiff's] claim for No-Fault benefits.” (Id. Doc. 47 at 3:22-4:5) During the EUO, Plaintiff’s counsel stated on the record that Plaintiff had made a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits and that it had been denied. (Id. at 7:11-18) During the EUO, counsel from Abrams Fensterman asked Plaintiff questions that, according to Plaintiff, were purposed to determine whether Plaintiff and Defendant, a taxi driver, had conspired to bring this action — i.e., to determine whether the action was fraudulent. (See id. at 8:19-9:16, 10:2-7) Beginning on July 9, 2021, ISG Medical contacted Plaintiff directly by letter on several occasions to inform him that Abrams Fensterman had scheduled Plaintiff to appear for independent medical examinations (“IME”) and that failure to attend them could result in the termination of any benefits. (Id. Docs. 48, 52) By letter dated March 17, 2022, Abrams Fensterman, acting on behalf of GLIC, notified Plaintiff that, based on the results of a March 1, 2022 IME of Plaintiff, Abrams Fensterman had determined that Plaintiff was no longer disabled and, as such, no further benefits would be paid to him. (Id. Doc. 53) As of the date of the instant motion, GLIC had not paid any no-fault benefits to Plaintiff. Based on these facts, Plaintiff contends that a conflict of interest exists because: (a) Abrams Fensterman was “wearing its ‘Global Liberty hat’ in exploring ways to link…Plaintiff to…[D]efendant and thereby deprive their own client of insurance coverage”; and (b) GLIC’s refusal to pay Plaintiff no-fault benefits “will be the basis to claim special damages against [Defendant]…further expos[ing]…[D]efendant and render[ing] it harder to resolve the matter within the minimal liability policy limits afforded by [GLIC], further exposing…[D]efendant.” (Id. Doc. 39,
24-25, 32) As the second ground for disqualification, Plaintiff argues that Abrams Fensterman’s dual representation of GLIC and Defendant has “emboldened” Abrams Fensterman to engage in further conduct violating the Rules. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that because the EUO and IME letters discussed supra were sent directly to him after the filing of this action, Abrams Fensterman violated Rule 4.2, the so-called “no contact” rule. (Id.
