numerous corporate and tax issues related thereto and to the SMI and the LLC; services in connection with Herbert Hribar employment arrangements, services in connection with various Registration Rights Agreements; services in connection with Lidestri settlement; miscellaneous general corporate services and advice” These billing statements demonstrate that the scope of Proskauer’s representation was more akin to outside general counsel during that two-year period than mere counsel on two or three isolated transactions. Although disqualification could rest on Proskauer’s work on the two acquisitions alone, the general nature of Pros-kauer’s work for Interliant over this two-year period reveals that Proskauer’s disqualification is well-founded where the complaint al (E.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>). In any event, there was no delay in this
holding that a year delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was no evidence that the motion was inspired by dilatory tactics holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that a threeyear delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not warrant barring such claim where the party seeking disqualification did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay