The motion court correctly held that appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's status as a rent stabilized tenant in the rent proceeding before the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and properly invoked collateral estoppel in resolving that issue in plaintiff's favor (see, Kaufman v. Lilly Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455-456; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 499). The court also properly refused to disqualify plaintiff's attorney absent a showing that the anticipated testimony of the attorney, who is "of counsel" to plaintiff's attorney, will be prejudicial to plaintiff (see, Martinez v. Suozzi, 186 A.D.2d 378, 379). We have considered and rejected appellant's other arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.