Summary
holding that disqualification is inappropriate where there was no realistic or plausible threat that legal work done for the defendant's subsidiary by plaintiff's attorneys would give an unfair advantage over defendant
Summary of this case from Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc. v. Atl. Yards B2 Owner, LLCOpinion
October 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, stay the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) ( see, Whitney v. Whitney, 57 N.Y.2d 731). Although shortly before this action was commenced against them, the defendants had instituted a similar action against the plaintiff in California, we find that under the circumstances of this case New York is the most appropriate forum for resolution of the disputes between the parties ( see, White Light Prods. v. On the Scene Prods., 231 A.D.2d 90; Flintkote v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 103 A.D.2d 501, affd 67 N.Y.2d 857).
Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.