between the two acquisitions and the transfers in Claims One through Six as part of a pattern of conduct constituting a breach of fiduciary duty by the officers and directors was not contrived for purposes of this disqualification motion. In the end, it may be that plaintiff will fail to prove any connection between the various transfers and acquisitions as a pattern of conduct constituting an ongoing breach of the officers’ and directors’ fiduciary duty. And it may be that plaintiff will fail to show that the officers and directors had control of the corporate and partnership defendants. However, this Court must examine the motion to disqualify based on the action before the court, which is set forth as the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff int , 117 (N.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>); Yaretsky v. Blum, 525 F.Supp. 24, 30-31
holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that a tenmonth delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of prejudice and because disqualification is in the public interest where there is an ethical violation 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 holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a tenmonth delay in filing a dismissal motion was reasonable 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