City of New York v. P.A. Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. P.A. Building Co.

201 A.D.2d 268, 608 N.Y.S.2d 827

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 268 (City of New York v. P.A. Building Co.) 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

City of New York v. P.A. Building Co., 201 A.D.2d 268, 608 N.Y.S.2d 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1992, which insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff to produce the three documents denominated as "A”, "B” and "C”, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular facts involved herein, the IAS Court, which conducted an in camera review of the documents in question, properly found that plaintiff did not meet its burden of establishing that the subject documents were protected from disclosure under the attorney-client or work product privilege (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1992, which insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff to produce the three documents denominated as "A”, "B” and "C”, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular facts involved herein, the IAS Court, which conducted an in camera review of the documents in question, properly found that plaintiff did not meet its burden of establishing that the subject documents were protected from disclosure under the attorney-client or work product privilege (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 268, 608 N.Y.S.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-pa-building-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack