On this record, we cannot determine whether summary judgment would be appropriate in these accounting proceedings, and, accordingly, affirm the denial of the motion. Additionally, the request for a protective order with respect to further disclosure is now academic and, in any event, no abuse of discretion by the IAS Court can be discerned.
However, in view of the fact that plaintiff in Action No. 2 has agreed to drop allegations of personal wrongdoing against Berg which created the potential conflict of interest preventing Berg from representing other partners in these lawsuits, there no longer exists a sufficient reason to deny these parties their choice of counsel, especially where they have submitted consents to having Berg represent them, and have been made aware of any potential conflict (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437; Rowe v. De Jesus, 106 A.D.2d 284). The motion to strike said allegations in Action No. 2 should also be granted.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.