Opinion
1870N
October 16, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered September 17, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to disqualify the law firm representing plaintiffs herein, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Martin R. Lee, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Michael Mantell, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger, JJ.
The four-year interval between the law firm's last services rendered to plaintiff partnership, in which defendant is a partner, and the commencement of this action refutes defendant's contention that the law firm has an ongoing attorney-client relationship with the partnership and thus owes him a duty of undivided loyalty (cf. Dembitzer v. Chera, 285 A.D.2d 525). Nor is disqualification warranted on the basis of any prior representation. While the law firm's previous services peripherally concerned property at issue herein, defendant fails to show either a substantial relationship between the subject matter of such prior services and the claims of misappropriation, waste and mismanagement of partnership assets made against defendant herein (see Rich v. Hackel, 205 A.D.2d 316), or that counsel "had received specific confidential information substantially related to the present litigation" (Lightning Park v. Wise Lerman Katz, 197 A.D.2d 52, 55).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.