Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Johnson

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided February 6, 1989PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Marie M. Lambert, S.

In a prior decision (NYLJ, Jan. 5, 1989, at 23, col 1), this court determined that the documents of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell were not subject to the attorney-client *691privilege in the pending proceeding for a permanent injunction. Sullivan & Cromwell has now moved for a protective order with respect to a very limited number of documents on the ground that they are the law firm’s internal work product and are immune from disclosure. With the consent of all parties, the documents were produced for review in camera by the Judicial Hearing Officer…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. In re VegaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Zackiva Communications Corp. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Specthrie & LerachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API