Gamiel v. Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gamiel v. Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C.

289 A.D.2d 88, 733 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 88 (Gamiel v. Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C.) 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

Gamiel v. Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C., 289 A.D.2d 88, 733 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which, in an action for legal malpractice, insofar as appealed from, directed defendant-appellant to produce certain documents it generated in connection with its representation of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject documents should be disclosed since they are material and necessary, and either contain matter beyond an attorney’s private thoughts in describing specific occurrences personally known to the attorney, or do not contain any indication that they served to “giv[e] internal direction to facilitate performance of the legal services entailed in [the] representation” (Matter of Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, 91 NY2d 30, 38; cf., Getman v Petro, 266 AD2d 688, 690). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, 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 February 2, 2000, which, in an action for legal malpractice, insofar as appealed from, directed defendant-appellant to produce certain documents it generated in connection with its representation of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject documents should be disclosed since they are material and necessary, and either contain matter beyond an attorney’s private thoughts in describing specific occurrences personally known to the attorney, or do not contain any indication that they served to “giv[e] internal direction to facilitate performance of the legal services entailed in [the] representation” (Matter of Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, 91 NY2d 30, 38; cf., Getman v Petro, 266 AD2d 688, 690). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 88, 733 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamiel-v-sullivan-liapakis-p-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack