In Commissioner of Transp. v. V.A.S.T Resources (145 Misc. 2d 1037 [1989]) a state agency commenced an eviction proceeding while being represented by private attorneys, with the approval of the Attorney General, although that approval was not authorized by Executive Law 63. In response to a motion by the state agency, the respondents cross-moved to disqualify the private attorneys for the state agency. The justice determining the cross motion decided that the Attorney General had to represent the state agency in the proceeding. However, he did not dismiss the proceeding due to this defect. Instead, he disqualified the private attorneys and suggested that the litigation could go forward if the Attorney General was substituted for the private attorneys.