570 Smith St. Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

570 Smith St. Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 2006, 148 A.D.3d 561, 50 N.Y.S.3d 57

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2017

Docket653296/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2006 (570 Smith St. Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., 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

570 Smith St. Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 2006, 148 A.D.3d 561, 50 N.Y.S.3d 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 23, 2016, which directed defendant insurer to produce documents that it had claimed were subject to the attorney-client privilege, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and the directive vacated.

In this action for breach of contract based on defendant insurer’s failure to pay benefits due under an insurance policy, plaintiffs objected, in a letter to Supreme Court, to defendant’s withholding of certain correspondence between it and its counsel on the ground that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Following an in camera inspection, the court directed defendant to produce the documents to plaintiff.

Following our own in camera review of the correspondence between defendant and its counsel, we conclude that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the correspondence is predominantly of a legal character (see Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588, 593 [1989]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 23, 2016, which directed defendant insurer to produce documents that it had claimed were subject to the attorney-client privilege, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and the directive vacated.

In this action for breach of contract based on defendant insurer’s failure to pay benefits due under an insurance policy, plaintiffs objected, in a letter to Supreme Court, to defendant’s withholding of certain correspondence between it and its counsel on the ground that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Following an in camera inspection, the court directed defendant to produce the documents to plaintiff.

Following our own in camera review of the correspondence between defendant and its counsel, we conclude that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the correspondence is predominantly of a legal character (see Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588, 593 [1989]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2006, 148 A.D.3d 561, 50 N.Y.S.3d 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/570-smith-st-corp-v-seneca-ins-co-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack