Falconwood Corp. v. In-Touch Technologies, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falconwood Corp. v. In-Touch Technologies, Ltd.

216 A.D.2d 140, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615

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

DecidedJune 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 140 (Falconwood Corp. v. In-Touch Technologies, 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

Falconwood Corp. v. In-Touch Technologies, Ltd., 216 A.D.2d 140, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 18, 1994, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to compel discovery of certain documents, unanimously reversed, on the law, insofar as appealed from, and the motion denied, without costs. Appeal from an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 22, 1994, which denied reconsideration, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The five documents which are the subject of this appeal were clearly prepared for the purpose of rendering legal advice from attorney to client and are immune from disclosure as attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [b], [c], [d] [2]). Contrary to the contentions of defendants, the record demonstrates the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Divonne Jarecki and plaintiff corporation at the time the documents were generated and also demonstrates that the [141]*141documents were never disclosed to outsiders. While plaintiffs motion for reconsideration clarified these matters, sufficient evidence supporting these factual conclusions was before the court on the original motion to require a decision in plaintiffs favor. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 18, 1994, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to compel discovery of certain documents, unanimously reversed, on the law, insofar as appealed from, and the motion denied, without costs. Appeal from an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 22, 1994, which denied reconsideration, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The five documents which are the subject of this appeal were clearly prepared for the purpose of rendering legal advice from attorney to client and are immune from disclosure as attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [b], [c], [d] [2]). Contrary to the contentions of defendants, the record demonstrates the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Divonne Jarecki and plaintiff corporation at the time the documents were generated and also demonstrates that the [141]*141documents were never disclosed to outsiders. While plaintiffs motion for reconsideration clarified these matters, sufficient evidence supporting these factual conclusions was before the court on the original motion to require a decision in plaintiffs favor. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 140, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falconwood-corp-v-in-touch-technologies-ltd-nyappdiv-1995.