Cowen & Co. v. Tecnoconsult Holdings Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cowen & Co. v. Tecnoconsult Holdings Ltd.

234 A.D.2d 86, 650 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 86 (Cowen & Co. v. Tecnoconsult Holdings Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cowen & Co. v. Tecnoconsult Holdings Ltd., 234 A.D.2d 86, 650 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered May 21, 1996, which granted petitioners’ application to disqualify the attorneys for respondents Tecnoconsult Holdings Limited and IFG Properties, N.V. (collectively, "Tecnoconsult”) in the underlying arbitration proceeding to the extent of disqualifying respondent Pritchard but not the law firm of which he is a [87]*87member, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny disqualification of Pritchard, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Disqualification is not warranted under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (A) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [a]), because Tecnoconsult does not intend to call Pritchard to testify on its behalf, and also because four other witnesses are available to testify as to the content of the conversation Pritchard allegedly overheard, making his testimony cumulative, and therefore not "necessary” to, Tecnoconsult’s claim (see, S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 445-446). Nor is disqualification warranted under DR 5-102 (B) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [b]) on the ground that petitioners may choose to call Pritchard as a witness at the arbitration, there being no reason to suppose that Pritchard would retreat from his sworn statement that he has no recollection of the alleged conversation, and therefore no basis for finding that his testimony may be prejudicial to Tecnoconsult (see, supra, at 446; Transcontinental Constr. Servs. v McDonough, Marcus, Cohn & Tretter, 216 AD2d 19). Since neither DR 5-102 (A) nor (B) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [a], [b]) requires disqualification of Pritchard, there is no basis for disqualifying his firm. We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered May 21, 1996, which granted petitioners’ application to disqualify the attorneys for respondents Tecnoconsult Holdings Limited and IFG Properties, N.V. (collectively, "Tecnoconsult”) in the underlying arbitration proceeding to the extent of disqualifying respondent Pritchard but not the law firm of which he is a [87]*87member, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny disqualification of Pritchard, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Disqualification is not warranted under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102 (A) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [a]), because Tecnoconsult does not intend to call Pritchard to testify on its behalf, and also because four other witnesses are available to testify as to the content of the conversation Pritchard allegedly overheard, making his testimony cumulative, and therefore not "necessary” to, Tecnoconsult’s claim (see, S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 445-446). Nor is disqualification warranted under DR 5-102 (B) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [b]) on the ground that petitioners may choose to call Pritchard as a witness at the arbitration, there being no reason to suppose that Pritchard would retreat from his sworn statement that he has no recollection of the alleged conversation, and therefore no basis for finding that his testimony may be prejudicial to Tecnoconsult (see, supra, at 446; Transcontinental Constr. Servs. v McDonough, Marcus, Cohn & Tretter, 216 AD2d 19). Since neither DR 5-102 (A) nor (B) (22 NYCRR 1200.21 [a], [b]) requires disqualification of Pritchard, there is no basis for disqualifying his firm. We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 86, 650 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowen-co-v-tecnoconsult-holdings-ltd-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack