Print-Art Services, N. J., Inc. v. Longacre Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Print-Art Services, N. J., Inc. v. Longacre Press, Inc.

193 A.D.2d 556, 597 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247

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

DecidedMay 25, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 556 (Print-Art Services, N. J., Inc. v. Longacre Press, Inc.) 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

Print-Art Services, N. J., Inc. v. Longacre Press, Inc., 193 A.D.2d 556, 597 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered December 30, 1992, inter alia, confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondent and denying a motion by petitioner to disqualify respondent’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An award of punitive damages cannot be inferred simply from the fact that the amount was not arrived at by precise mathematical calculations (Matter of Disston Co. [Aktiebolag], 176 AD2d 679, 680, lv denied 79 NY2d 757). As for disqualification of respondent’s attorneys, the argument was not formally raised by petitioner until after respondent had cross-moved to confirm the award, and, as such, was waived. In any event, the possibility that petitioner might call respondent’s attorney as a witness was insufficient grounds for disqualification (NYK Line [N. Am.] v Mitsubishi Bank, 171 AD2d 486). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered December 30, 1992, inter alia, confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondent and denying a motion by petitioner to disqualify respondent’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An award of punitive damages cannot be inferred simply from the fact that the amount was not arrived at by precise mathematical calculations (Matter of Disston Co. [Aktiebolag], 176 AD2d 679, 680, lv denied 79 NY2d 757). As for disqualification of respondent’s attorneys, the argument was not formally raised by petitioner until after respondent had cross-moved to confirm the award, and, as such, was waived. In any event, the possibility that petitioner might call respondent’s attorney as a witness was insufficient grounds for disqualification (NYK Line [N. Am.] v Mitsubishi Bank, 171 AD2d 486). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 556, 597 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/print-art-services-n-j-inc-v-longacre-press-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack