In Kattas v. Sherman (32 AD3d 496 [2d Dept 2006], the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase a house. The contract required the defendant to obtain a letter in lieu of a certificate of occupancy. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant refused to obtain the letter and repudiated the contract. The defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff's counsel. The court held as follows: "The defendant is correct that the counsel for the plaintiffs should have been disqualified. The plaintiffs' counsel is a potential witness in the determination of the breach of contract issue, and was intimately involved in the failed purchase of the property. He dealt with the defendant directly during the latter's application for the letter, and the defendant alleges that plaintiffs' counsel failed to submit the application as they had previously agreed. In addition, the defendant conversed directly with the plaintiffs' counsel via phone when the defendant indicated that he would obtain the letter after his alleged prior refusal to do so. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs' counsel became a witness with information about relevant and material facts and thus should have been disqualified."