By letter dated October 21, 1992, defendants-appellants expressly consented to said representation in connection with these instruments and further failed to object to the firm's representation of plaintiff in two separate actions against defendants. The court thus properly found defendants barred from seeking the firm's disqualification on the theories of consent, waiver (see, Thomson U.S. v. Gosnell, 151 Misc.2d 249, 258, affd 181 A.D.2d 558, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 893) and laches (see, Matter of Huie [Gottfried], 2 A.D.2d 163). Further, defendants demonstrated neither a "substantial relationship" between the former and current representations nor specified the confidential information imparted which would bear upon the issues of the present litigation (Lightning Park v. Wise Lerman Katz, 197 A.D.2d 52, 55).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.