—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant St. Francis Hospital appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated October 31, 1995, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs to appoint a temporary administrator for the estate of Dr. "John” Boyd and appointed the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker as guardian to act as temporary administrator of the estate of the defendant Dr. "John” Boyd for purposes of defending the action, and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 20, 1996, as (a) denied its motion (i) for leave to interpose a cross claim for breach of contract against the defendant National Emergency Services of New York P. C., (ii) for a hearing on the insurance coverage available to certain defendants, (iii) to disqualify the firm of Wilson, Elser Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker from representing the estate of Dr. Boyd, and (b) upon the granting of its separate motion, in effect, to reargue the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a temporary administrator for the estate of "John” Boyd, adhered to its original determination. The defendant Howard Rose separately appeals from so much of the order dated March 20, 1996, as, upon the granting of his cross motion, in effect, to reargue the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a temporary administrator, adhered to its original determination.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 1995, is dismissed as that order was superseded by so much of the order dated March 20, 1996, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 20, 1996, is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant St. Francis Hospital (hereinafter St. Francis), lacks standing to complain about the representation of the estate of "John” Boyd by the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Edelman & Dicker (hereinafter Wilson, Elser), as St. Francis is neither a present nor a former client of that firm (see, Matter of Metropolitan Transp. Auth. [Cohen],
Moreover, St. Francis failed to demonstrate that the former and current representation by Wilson, Elser of Boyd and/or
The Supreme Court properly denied the requests for additional discovery after the filing of the note of issue because St. Francis and the defendant Howard Rose failed to demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue (see, Fox Co. v Sleicher,
To the extent that St. Francis sought leave to file a late cross claim for breach of contract based on the alleged failure of NES to procure any insurance for St. Francis, NMS, or Boyd, the Supreme Court properly determined that the cross claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213; ElyCruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal,
We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
