The IAS Court correctly applied New York law, since New York has the stronger interest in the conduct of counsel in a New York forum ( see, Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 522; Biderman Indus. Licensing v. Avmar N.V., 173 A.D.2d 401). Disqualification is warranted because a substantial relationship exists between the subject of counsel's prior representation and the instant matter ( Forest Park Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v Kraus, 175 A.D.2d 60, 61-62), and a corporation's right to assert its attorney-client privilege cannot be waived by former principals ( Commodity Futures Trading Commn. v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 349). Accordingly, defendant law firm's former representation of plaintiff, which also involved substantial services to the individual who sold his stock to plaintiff's present principals, concerning matters directly involved in the underlying arbitration, precludes the firm's representation of the former shareholder in the arbitration ( see, Thomson U.S. v Gosnell, 181 A.D.2d 558, 560, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 893).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.