Broyles & Broyles, Inc. v. Rainbow Square, Ltd.

125 A.D.2d 933, 510 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 933 (Broyles & Broyles, Inc. v. Rainbow Square, Ltd.) 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
Broyles & Broyles, Inc. v. Rainbow Square, Ltd., 125 A.D.2d 933, 510 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with [934]*934the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) for reasons stated at Special Term. However, we reverse Special Term’s order insofar as it directs defendant to produce Bennett J. Halpern for a deposition upon oral questions.

This is an action for breach of contract and for the reasonable value of work, labor and services performed by plaintiff for defendant in connection with the design and construction of a mechanical and heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system for the Rainbow Centre Mall in Niagara Falls, New York. The record shows that defendant sought Halpern’s advice on corrective measures in the HVAC system to reduce energy consumption. We agree that his work product was not performed in preparation for litigation and thus is not privileged. However, defendant cannot be compelled to produce Halpern for deposition since he is not its agent nor within its control. Agency is a fiduciary relationship "which results from a manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and the consent by the other to act * * * It is a relationship whereby 'one retains a degree of direction and control over another’ ” (Meese v Miller, 79 AD2d 237, 241). There is no proof that defendant retained control over Halpern when he performed his energy analysis and, since there is no showing that he is an agent of defendant, his examination could not be directed under CPLR 3101 (a) (1) (see, Ludden v Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 38 AD2d 783). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Doyle, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Occidental Gems, Inc.
41 A.D.3d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Buffalo & Erie County Regional Development Corp. v. World Auto Parts, Inc.
306 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Spa Realty Associates v. Springs Associates
178 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 933, 510 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broyles-broyles-inc-v-rainbow-square-ltd-nyappdiv-1986.