Manning v. Sikorskyj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manning v. Sikorskyj

204 A.D.2d 976, 614 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6779

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 27, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: [977]*977The record reflects that the attorney conducted the interview in question while acting as attorney for the estate of Lisa M. Manning, and we conclude that the tape recording of the interview was protected from discovery as attorney work product (see, CPLR 3101 [c]). It is not necessary for us to decide whether the tape is also protected by the attorney-client privilege on the ground that, at the time, the attorney was also representing Mary Beth Manning. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Discovery.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: [977]*977The record reflects that the attorney conducted the interview in question while acting as attorney for the estate of Lisa M. Manning, and we conclude that the tape recording of the interview was protected from discovery as attorney work product (see, CPLR 3101 [c]). It is not necessary for us to decide whether the tape is also protected by the attorney-client privilege on the ground that, at the time, the attorney was also representing Mary Beth Manning. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Discovery.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Manning v. Sikorskyj, 204 A.D.2d 976, 614 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 976 (Manning v. Sikorskyj) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related