Yasuda Trust & Banking Co. v. 250 Church Associates

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 8, 1994, which denied appellants’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Dreyer & Traub from representing plaintiff in this foreclosure action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

By letter dated October 21, 1992, defendants-appellants expressly consented to said representation in connection with these instruments and further failed to object to the firm’s representation of plaintiff in two separate actions against *260defendants. The court thus properly found defendants barred from seeking the firm’s disqualification on the theories of consent, waiver (see, Thomson U.S. v Gosnell, 151 Misc 2d 249, 258, affd 181 AD2d 558, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 893) and laches (see, Matter of Huie [Gottfried], 2 AD2d 163). Further, defendants demonstrated neither a "substantial relationship” between the former and current representations nor specified the confidential information imparted which would bear upon the issues of the present litigation (Lightning Park v Wise Lerman & Katz, 197 AD2d 52, 55). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.