Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the order entered June 8, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered October 7, 1994, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it asserted a cause of action on behalf of Barbara Signorile and adding a provision thereto granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order entered October 7, 1994, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiffs Dominick Signorile and Anthony Carrozza had standing to commence this action (see, Matter of Schulman, 165 A.D.2d 499, 503-504; see also, Business Corporation Law § 626; Glenn v. Hoteltron Sys., 74 N.Y.2d 386, 392; Independent Investor Protective League v. Time, 50 N.Y.2d 259, 263; Schoettmer v. F.G.S. Realty Corp., 143 A.D.2d 128, 129). The plaintiff Barbara Signorile, however, was never a shareholder in the plaintiff corporations, she did not invest in those corporations, and she did not seek legal advice from the defendant Hilton Soniker. As a result, she did not have standing to commence this action and summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint insofar as it asserted a cause of action on behalf of Barbara Signorile (see, Matter of Schulman, 165 A.D.2d 499, 503-504, supra; see also, Business Corporation Law § 626; Glenn v. Hoteltron Sys., 74 N.Y.2d, at 392, supra; Independent Investor Protective League v Time, 50 N.Y.2d, at 263, supra).
In light of the evidence that Hilton Soniker received 18% and 50% of the stock of each of the plaintiff close corporations in return for acting as the attorney for the remaining individual plaintiffs and the corporations, and that Soniker prepared a will for the plaintiff Anthony Carrozza, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining plaintiffs (see, Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 92; Howard v. Murray, 43 N.Y.2d 417; Frost v. Bachman, 259 App. Div. 745, affd 283 N.Y. 744, 745; see also, Rosiny v. Schmidt, 185 A.D.2d 727, 730; Fender v. Prescott, 101 A.D.2d 418, 422, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1079).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' attorney (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437; Plotkin v Interco Dev. Co., 137 A.D.2d 671). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.