Netherby Ltd. v. G.V. Trademark Investments, Ltd.

261 A.D.2d 161, 689 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4587

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 8, 1998, which, inter alia, directed defendant-appellant to produce 16 documents in compliance with a discovery order of the Special Master, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant fails to sustain its burden of establishing that any of the 16 documents falls under the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 69), since the documents either were disclosed to, or made by, third parties (see, Eisic Trading Corp. v Somerset Mar., 212 AD2d 451) not in an agency relationship with appellant (see, Le Long v Siebrecht, 196 App Div 74, 76), or were of a business, rather than legal, nature (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377-378). We have . considered appellant’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.