Order of the same court and Justice, entered December 6, 1993, which denied third-party defendant's motion to disqualify third-party plaintiffs' counsel, unanimously affirmed, both with one bill of costs.
The IAS Court properly determined that the main action and the third-party action are sufficiently related to allow for impleader under CPLR 1007 (see, Cohen Agency v Perlman Agency, 51 N.Y.2d 358, 365). Additionally, the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the third-party complaint under CPLR 1010. Plaintiff in the main action has not asserted any prejudice by reason of the delay necessary to complete disclosure in the third-party action. Moreover, the claims in the main action and third-party action are so intertwined that one trial is both appropriate and judicially efficient.
Finally, third-party defendant has failed to sustain its burden to demonstrate that third-party plaintiffs' counsel should be disqualified (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437). The prior representation by a member of the firm was not to third-party defendant but rather to the syndicate generally. Third-party defendant's confidences are not implicated and thus there exists no basis for disqualification.
We have considered third-party defendant's other contentions and find them meritless.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.