SMOTHERS v. Mandeep K. Brar, M.D., Defendant-Respondent. (2000)

 In July 1999 Mandeep K. Brar, M.D. (defendant) retained the former attorneys of plaintiff's treating physician, who had been represented by them in March 1998 for purposes of a deposition in plaintiff's medical malpractice case against defendant.   Plaintiff moved to disqualify the attorneys from representing defendant on the ground of a conflict of interest.   We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion (see, Olmoz v. Town of Fishkill, 258 A.D.2d 447, 447-448, 684 N.Y.S.2d 611).   Plaintiff failed to prove that she had a prior attorney-client relationship with those attorneys, nor did she establish that the interests of her nonparty treating physician and defendant are materially adverse (see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 131, 651 N.Y.S.2d 954, 674 N.E.2d 663, rearg. denied 89 N.Y.2d 917, 653 N.Y.S.2d 921, 676 N.E.2d 503).   Moreover, plaintiff failed to identify specific confidential information imparted to the attorneys by her treating physician (see, Nowak v. Pillich, 186 A.D.2d 1018, 1018-1019, 588 N.Y.S.2d 443).   Plaintiff's argument that defendant may eventually assert a claim for contribution against plaintiff's treating physician is not preserved for our review (see, Gorman v. Ravesi, 256 A.D.2d 1134, 684 N.Y.S.2d 386) and, in any event, is speculative and thus does not warrant disqualification (see, Olmoz v. Town of Fishkill, supra, at 447-448, 684 N.Y.S.2d 611).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: