Schulte Roth & Zabel, L. L. P. v. Chammah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulte Roth & Zabel, L. L. P. v. Chammah

251 A.D.2d 132, 672 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6945

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

DecidedJune 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 132 (Schulte Roth & Zabel, L. L. P. v. Chammah) 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

Schulte Roth & Zabel, L. L. P. v. Chammah, 251 A.D.2d 132, 672 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huíf, J.), entered February 3, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending completion of other pending civil litigation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for legal fees, we agree with the IAS Court that the possibility that defendant will be prejudiced in two other pending civil actions if he is called upon to testify in the present action does not constitute an appropriate ground to stay the present action, even though defendant claims entitlement to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Also properly rejected by the IAS Court was defendant’s attempt to obtain a stay on the ground of attorney-client privilege since defendant waived that privilege by placing the subject matter of his attorney’s advice in issue by asserting a malpractice counterclaim (Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huíf, J.), entered February 3, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending completion of other pending civil litigation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for legal fees, we agree with the IAS Court that the possibility that defendant will be prejudiced in two other pending civil actions if he is called upon to testify in the present action does not constitute an appropriate ground to stay the present action, even though defendant claims entitlement to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Also properly rejected by the IAS Court was defendant’s attempt to obtain a stay on the ground of attorney-client privilege since defendant waived that privilege by placing the subject matter of his attorney’s advice in issue by asserting a malpractice counterclaim (Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 132, 672 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulte-roth-zabel-l-l-p-v-chammah-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack