VANARTHROS v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 1995, is dismissed as that order was superseded by so much of the order dated March 20, 1996, made upon reargument; and it is further,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], 222 AD2d 340; Matter of Reichenbaum v Reichenbaum Silberstein, P. C, 162 AD2d 599; Matter of Town Country Constr. Co., 160 AD2d 1085; Rowley v Waterfront Airways, 113 AD2d 926).

Moreover, St. Francis failed to demonstrate that the former and current representation by Wilson, Elser of Boyd and/or the defendants National Emergency Services, Inc. (hereinafter NES) and National Medical Services of New York, P. C. (hereinafter NMS) is adverse ( see, Solow v Grace Co., 83 NY2d 303, 308; Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447, 452; Matter of Metropolitan Transp. Auth. [Cohen], supra; Genova v Genova, 226 AD2d 502).

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, 186 AD2d 537, citing 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e], [d]; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 AD2d 601).

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, 81 NY2d 399, 402). Finally, the Supreme Court properly determined that St. Francis failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract based on the allegation that NES obtained the required insurance coverage, but that such coverage was exhausted or impaired due to the insolvency of one of the insurers.

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.