You are here: / / EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT...
, ,

EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that emails which had inadvertently been provided to the plaintiff were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Therefore Supreme Court should not have granted a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b):

… [T]he defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing a right to protection of the subject emails … . The communications relate to the business of the defendants, rather than legal issues … , and nothing stated by in-house counsel in the emails sets him apart as a legal advisor in the discussion. The affidavits of the defendants’ CEO and in-house counsel, submitted in support of the cross motion, merely state in a conclusory manner that the communications were confidential and privileged. The defendants point to no particular communication in which in-house counsel gave legal advice, or in which the defendants’ other employees sought legal advice from in-house counsel. Saran v Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 05710, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

You might also like
Court Has Discretion to Grant a Recess to Allow a Conference Between a Lawyer and a Testifying Witness
FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DECEDENT REVOKED A LOST WILL.
DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; ALREADY COMPLETED SENTENCE REDUCED BECAUSE OF THE... THE NOTICES OF CLAIM NOTIFIED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS ONLY OF THE DAMAGES RELATING...