Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP

39 A.D.3d 201, 831 N.Y.S.2d 705
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP. Read the opinion of the Court — 14 A.D.3d 414

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 23, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, declared that plaintiffs waived the attorney-client privilege as to legal advice they received regarding compliance of their Russian operation with Russian tax laws and licensure requirements, affirmed, without costs.

Defendant sufficiently demonstrated that the advice it gave in the course of its allegedly negligent representation was framed, in this malpractice action, as the sole cause of plaintiffs’ injury in Russia. Invasion of the attorney-client privilege is necessary, under these circumstances, to determine the validity of such claims, and is vital to the defense (see Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390 [1992]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 39 A.D.3d 201, 831 N.Y.S.2d 705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

39 A.D.3d 201 (Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn
97 A.D.2d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Orco Bank v. Pacifico
179 A.D.2d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Stark v. Greenberg, Dauber & Epstein
219 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
DeBartolo v. Coccia
276 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)