Town of Oyster Bay v. Preco Chemical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Oyster Bay v. Preco Chemical Corp.

74 A.D.2d 825, 425 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10572

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 825 (Town of Oyster Bay v. Preco Chemical Corp.) 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

Town of Oyster Bay v. Preco Chemical Corp., 74 A.D.2d 825, 425 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a permanent injunction, (1) defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 22, 1979, as granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order.with respect to Items Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 designated in defendants’ notice for discovery and inspection, and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed it to allow defendants to inspect Items Nos. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 23 designated in defendants’ notice for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without [826]*826costs or disbursements. Special Term properly ruled that the items which are the subject of the defendants’ appeal were exempt from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd [b]) and 4503 (subd [a]). Communications between a town attorney and municipal officers are privileged attorney-client communications (Matter of Pennock v Lane, 36 Misc 2d 253, revd on other grounds 18 AD2d 1043). Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving its claim of privilege for the items which are the subject of the cross appeal (see Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 NY2d 113). Mangano, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a permanent injunction, (1) defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 22, 1979, as granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order.with respect to Items Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 designated in defendants’ notice for discovery and inspection, and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed it to allow defendants to inspect Items Nos. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 23 designated in defendants’ notice for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without [826]*826costs or disbursements. Special Term properly ruled that the items which are the subject of the defendants’ appeal were exempt from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd [b]) and 4503 (subd [a]). Communications between a town attorney and municipal officers are privileged attorney-client communications (Matter of Pennock v Lane, 36 Misc 2d 253, revd on other grounds 18 AD2d 1043). Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving its claim of privilege for the items which are the subject of the cross appeal (see Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 NY2d 113). Mangano, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 825, 425 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-oyster-bay-v-preco-chemical-corp-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack