Opinion
August 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
The IAS Court correctly limited plaintiff's discovery to information pertaining to defendants' dealings with plaintiff. The only issue relevant to plaintiff's revived breach of contract claim is whether defendant law firm breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by requiring or demanding that plaintiff act in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-103(A) ( 22 NYCRR 1200.4[a]) as a condition of his continued employment ( see, Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628). Therefore, plaintiff's demands for information regarding defendant Lubin's additional misdeeds were properly stricken as irrelevant.
We are not persuaded, however, that defendants would be unduly prejudiced in defense of plaintiff's malpractice claims if those claims are reconsolidated with matters relating to the purported breach of contract and wrongful discharge of plaintiff. Discovery relating to all of the claims has been consolidated and it would be duplicitous to require two separate trials with the concomitant costs and expenses, as well as a waste of judicial resources ( see, Chinatown Apts. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 824, 825).
Motion by defendant granted in part, to the extent of striking from plaintiff's brief all references to any purported defense of "mistake" asserted by Lubin, and all references to the testimony of Stephen R. Foreht and the purported destruction of documents referred to therein, and references to the affirmative defenses stricken by order of Supreme Court dated October 22, 1993.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.