1010Data, Inc. v. Firestone Enterprises, Inc.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion (see Harris v Sculco, 86 AD3d 481 [2011]) in finding that plaintiff’s attorney did not have a conflict with either his present or former client and was not a necessary witness.

The attorney’s interest as a director and 2% owner of plaintiff did not pose an impediment and, in any event, any resulting conflicts were waived. Nor did the attorney’s prior interests or small financial stake obtained in a later transaction constitute improperly acquired interests.

The circumstances do not show that the attorney had formerly represented Evan Firestone…