Opinion
June 19, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered November 9, 2000, which, in proceedings to dissolve various corporations and partnerships, denied appellants' motion to disqualify respondents' attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Robert C. Boneberg, for the dissolution, etc., for petitioners-appellants.
Eugene Mittelman, for respondents-respondents.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Buckley, Marlow, JJ.
The motion was properly denied on the ground that appellants could not have reasonably expected that respondents' attorneys would withhold from respondents information imparted by appellants in the context of litigation in which appellants and respondents were jointly represented by the attorneys and involving business entities in which appellants and respondents were jointly interested (see, Talvy v. American Red Cross, 205 A.D.2d 143, 150, affd 87 N.Y.2d 826, citing, inter alia, Allegaert v. Perot, 565 F.2d 246, 250-251). Nor do appellants show a substantial relationship between the valuation issues herein and the prior representations in which they were represented by respondents' attorneys (see, Solow v. Grace Co., 83 N.Y.2d 303, 308). We have considered appellants' other arguments and find them unavailing.
Motion seeking leave to supplement the record is granted to the extent of enlarging the record to include the summons and complaint in the action entitled Meyers v. Maidman (exh. 3 to moving papers) and the excerpt from the transcript of the February 18, 2000 hearing (exh. 4 to moving papers) and otherwise denied.