601 Realty Corp. v. Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

601 Realty Corp. v. Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C.

74 A.D.3d 1179, 902 N.Y.S.2d 433

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 2010·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, EC., Angela Pantony, and Richard W Dawson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated November 7, 2008, as denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the appellants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008, is granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the appellants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008, should have been granted. The invasion of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject communications and documents is required in order for the appellants to assert their defense to the action at trial (see Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390, 390-391 [1992]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835 [1983]; Goldberg v Hirschberg, 10 Misc 3d 292, 295 [2005]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be addressed in light of our determination, have been rendered academic, or are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 33076(U).]

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

In action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, EC., Angela Pantony, and Richard W Dawson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated November 7, 2008, as denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the appellants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008, is granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the appellants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to items 3 and 6 in their notice for discovery and inspection dated January 11, 2008, should have been granted. The invasion of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject communications and documents is required in order for the appellants to assert their defense to the action at trial (see Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390, 390-391 [1992]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835 [1983]; Goldberg v Hirschberg, 10 Misc 3d 292, 295 [2005]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be addressed in light of our determination, have been rendered academic, or are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 33076(U).]

601 Realty Corp. v. Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C., 74 A.D.3d 1179, 902 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

74 A.D.3d 1179 (601 Realty Corp. v. Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related