Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Amnon SHIBOLETH, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph YERUSHALMI, et al., Defendants-Appellants,
NSN International Industries, N.V., et al., Defendants. Joseph Yerushalmi, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Shiboleth, Yisraeli, Roberts & Zisman, L.L.P., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 8, 1998, which, in an action between former law partners, inter alia, dismissed the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 1, 1999, which granted plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 16, 1999, which, sua sponte, struck defendants' answer, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the answer reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including determination of defendants' motions for a protective order and to compel production of documents, before another Justice.
The third-party action was properly dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. Although one of the third-party defendant law firms did not move for such relief, the other third-party defendants did, and all of the claims should be decided in Israel, where most of them arose, most of the witnesses are located, and the law of which applies (CPLR 327[a] ). The complaint was also properly dismissed on the basis of the agreement providing for arbitration.
Defendants' “special counsel”, whose knowledge of relevant and necessary information makes it a real possibility that he will be called as a witness by plaintiffs and give testimony prejudicial to defendants, was properly disqualified (see, Matter of Stober v. Gaba & Stober, 259 A.D.2d 554, 686 N.Y.S.2d 440). However, the IAS court acted improperly in refusing to entertain defendants' motions for a protective order and to compel production of documents, and in sua sponte striking their answer. There was no showing of contumacious conduct or a pattern of noncompliance by defendants, who simply expressed displeasure with the Special Referee's directives and sought a decision by the court (see, Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Lib-Com, 266 A.D.2d 142, 699 N.Y.S.2d 16).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 18, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)