BEW Parking Corp. v. Apthorp Associates LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BEW Parking Corp. v. Apthorp Associates LLC

141 A.D.3d 425, 35 N.Y.S.3d 81

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2016

Docket1671N 601155/09

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 425 (BEW Parking Corp. v. Apthorp Associates LLC) 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

BEW Parking Corp. v. Apthorp Associates LLC, 141 A.D.3d 425, 35 N.Y.S.3d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of certain documents withheld as protected by the attorney-client privilege, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, which has no employees, established, through specific affidavits of persons with knowledge, that its counsel had to communicate with defendant’s agents in order to provide legal advice regarding, among other things, the repairs to the garage it owned and the vacate order regarding the garage. Further, the averments of counsel and the context of the communications demonstrate that there was an expectation by defendant that the communications would be held in confidence. As such, defendant established that the communications at issue were privileged (see Gama Aviation Inc. v Sandton Capital Partners, L.P., 99 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant did not waive the privilege by producing nonprivileged documents related to the same issues (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Ams. v Tri-Links Inv. Trust, 43 AD3d 56, 64 [1st Dept 2007]). A waiver occurs when the privileged information itself is placed at issue (id.; see also Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390 [1st Dept 1992]); such a waiver did not occur here.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of certain documents withheld as protected by the attorney-client privilege, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, which has no employees, established, through specific affidavits of persons with knowledge, that its counsel had to communicate with defendant’s agents in order to provide legal advice regarding, among other things, the repairs to the garage it owned and the vacate order regarding the garage. Further, the averments of counsel and the context of the communications demonstrate that there was an expectation by defendant that the communications would be held in confidence. As such, defendant established that the communications at issue were privileged (see Gama Aviation Inc. v Sandton Capital Partners, L.P., 99 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant did not waive the privilege by producing nonprivileged documents related to the same issues (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Ams. v Tri-Links Inv. Trust, 43 AD3d 56, 64 [1st Dept 2007]). A waiver occurs when the privileged information itself is placed at issue (id.; see also Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390 [1st Dept 1992]); such a waiver did not occur here.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 425, 35 N.Y.S.3d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bew-parking-corp-v-apthorp-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack