Opinion
November 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Imperato, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs payable by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's cross motion is denied.
We find that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing that if counsel for the defendant Maria Frias is called as a witness by the plaintiff, his testimony will or may be prejudicial to his client (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 [B]; Ocean-Clear, Inc. v Continental Cas. Co., 94 A.D.2d 717, 719). As noted by the court, whether counsel's projected testimony would be prejudicial to his client is "the subject of speculation". Accordingly, the plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify counsel should have been denied. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.