Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum. The Special Term order, affirmed by the Appellate Division, was a legitimate exercise of discretion. We take this occasion to resolve a conflict between the various departments of the Appellate Division on the question of jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the appearance of counsel in a matter on the grounds of alleged professional misconduct. (Compare Matter of Huie [ Gottfried], 2 A.D.2d 163 [3d Dept.] and Renault, Inc. v. Auto Imports, Ltd., 19 A.D.2d 814 [1st Dept.] with Marco v. Sachs, 1 A.D.2d 851 [2d Dept.].) While jurisdiction to discipline an attorney for misconduct is vested exclusively in the Appellate Division (see Erie County Water Auth. v. Western N Y Water Co., 304 N.Y. 342), disqualification in a particular matter should be sought in the court in which the action is pending or, if no action is pending, at a Special Term of the Supreme Court (see Matter of Huie [ Gottfried], supra; Renault, Inc. v. Auto Imports, Ltd., supra.) The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING and BREITEL.