Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The plain language of the contract pursuant to which plaintiffs assigned certain software rights to defendant demonstrates that variable compensation to plaintiffs of up to $1 million was not guaranteed. Plaintiffs, in connection with the transaction were, however, assured an up-front payment of $200,000 and consulting fees of at least $126,000. Moreover, the assignment notwithstanding, plaintiffs were permitted to exploit the subject software for any use except the financing or lease of transportation assets, unless defendant failed to use the
In light of our affirmance of the grant of summary judgment to defendant, defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [b]) is academic. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Catterson, JJ.