Ortiz v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Rivera

193 A.D.2d 440, 597 N.Y.S.2d 326

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

DecidedMay 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 440 (Ortiz v. Rivera) 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

Ortiz v. Rivera, 193 A.D.2d 440, 597 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.) entered May 14, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena served by defendant upon nonparty witness-attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the proposed deposition [441]*441regarding the collateral issue of the copying of decedent’s medical record by plaintiffs daughter while an employee of defendant was not relevant, necessary or material to the litigation (see, Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 101 AD2d 574, lv dismissed 64 NY2d 754). Further, as the referring attorney herein had been contacted in his capacity as an attorney, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and services, the attorney client privilege precluded his testimony (CPLR 3101 [b]; 4503; see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 68-69). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.) entered May 14, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena served by defendant upon nonparty witness-attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the proposed deposition [441]*441regarding the collateral issue of the copying of decedent’s medical record by plaintiffs daughter while an employee of defendant was not relevant, necessary or material to the litigation (see, Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 101 AD2d 574, lv dismissed 64 NY2d 754). Further, as the referring attorney herein had been contacted in his capacity as an attorney, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and services, the attorney client privilege precluded his testimony (CPLR 3101 [b]; 4503; see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 68-69). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 440, 597 N.Y.S.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-rivera-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack