You are here: / UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE...

Search Results

/

UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subtenants (respondents), pursuant to the Multiple Dwelling Law, could not collect rent from the lessee (petitioner) for the period during which there was no certificate of occupancy:

​

Petitioner was the net lessee of the third floor of a six-story building, a de facto multiple dwelling; the net lease provided, inter alia, that there was no permanent certificate of occupancy for either the building or the demised premises. In April 2013, petitioner brought this proceeding alleging that respondents, its subtenants, had failed to pay residential use and occupancy since January 2013. Affording the relevant statutory language its natural and ordinary meaning … , we conclude that the proceeding must be dismissed because petitioner was not entitled to collect rent from respondents.

For purposes of the Multiple Dwelling Law, an “owner” is broadly defined to include a “lessee” … . Respondents’ unit constituted a “dwelling” under the Multiple Dwelling Law [“any building or structure or portion thereof which is occupied in whole or in part as the home, residence or sleeping place of one or more human beings” (Multiple Dwelling Law 4[4]). The owner of a “dwelling or structure … occupied in whole or in part for human habitation in violation of [§ 301]” may not recover rent for the period during which there is no certificate of occupancy for “such premises” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 302[1][b]). Nor may the owner maintain an action or special proceeding for possession of the premises for nonpayment of “such rent” (id.). Thus, petitioner, as owner of respondents’ dwelling, was precluded from charging respondents rent or other remuneration while the building lacked a certificate of occupancy for residential use … . Matter of 49 Bleecker, Inc. v Gathien, 2018 NY Slip Op 00476, First Dept 1-25-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (LANDLORD-TENANT, MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW,  LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/SUBTENANTS (UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))

/

LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR RENTING TO AIRBNB CUSTOMERS, THE EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined there was no basis to dismiss the ejectment cause of action which was based upon the rent-regulated tenant’s renting to Airbnb customers:

​

Plaintiff seeks to eject defendants based on their having illegally sublet rooms in their loft through the Airbnb website to numerous individuals, over a period of about two years, resulting in profits well in excess of the legal regulated rent. It is well settled that, when regulated tenants rent space on a short-term basis to transient individuals at rates higher than allowed by applicable regulations, that conduct is “in the nature of subletting rather than taking in roommates, and constitute[s] profiteering and commercialization of the premises,” which is an “incurable violation” … . Defendants do not dispute that tenants regulated pursuant to the Loft Law also are subject to eviction for profiteering … .

Since the alleged conduct is incurable, no notice to cure is required … . As for the adequacy of the predicate notice of termination, plaintiff served a notice under the terms of the expired lease, which carried over into the statutory tenancy and governed the amount of notice required when the tenant violates a substantial obligation of his tenancy or is alleged to have engaged in illegal conduct … . Aurora Assoc. LLC v Hennen, 2018 NY Slip Op 00465, First Dept 1-25-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (EJECTMENT, AIRBNB, LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR RENTING TO AIRBNB CUSTOMERS, THE EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/EJECTMENT (LANDLORD-TENANT, ARIBNB, LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR RENTING TO AIRBNB CUSTOMERS, THE EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/AIRBNB (EJECTMENT, LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR RENTING TO AIRBNB CUSTOMERS, THE EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/PROFITEERING (LANDLORD-TENANT, AIRBNB, EJECTIMENT, LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR RENTING TO AIRBNB CUSTOMERS, THE EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff was on a ladder working on a heavy suspended transformer when it shifted and struck him. Plaintiff demonstrated he was not provided with any adequate safety devices, and defendants did not demonstrate adequate safety devices were available:

​

Plaintiff established prima facie his entitlement to the protections of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence that he was injured when a corner of an electrical transformer weighing hundreds of pounds and suspended from a ceiling shifted downward and struck him on the head as he was standing on a ladder working on it and that he had not been provided with any safety devices adequate to his task… .

​

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to their contention that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff’s coworker testified that there were no readily available safety devices to assist him and plaintiff in their task… . While plaintiff’s foreman testified that he had given specific instructions to his workers about using wooden delivery pallets to prop up the transformer at the corner being worked on, he conceded that he did not know whether plaintiff was standing near enough to him to have heard these instructions … . In any event, defendants submitted no evidence that this improvised method was a suitable safety device … . Gericitano v Brookfield Props. OLP Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00480, First Dept 1-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT))

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted because there was a question of fact about plaintiff’s comparative negligence:

​

Plaintiff’s testimony that he slipped on water on the floor of the stairwell where he was working establishes prima facie a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) (“Slipping hazards”). In opposition, defendant, relying solely on speculative hearsay testimony (by another employee), failed to raise an issue of fact as to the way the accident occurred … .

While the record demonstrates defendant’s liability as a matter of law, an issue of fact exists as to negligence on plaintiff’s part … ,which could result in an apportionment of liability … . Plaintiff testified that, as he entered the stairwell, he was looking up to determine the location of the box through which he was to run cable, and that, while carrying a ladder in one hand, he attempted to descend the staircase without looking at the stairs or the landing in front of him. Luciano v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 00473, First Dept 1-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/

INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer of a Peter Pan bus was obligated to defend and indemnify the bus company in an action brought by a passenger who fell attempting to pick up her luggage outside the bus:

​

The insurance policy issued by defendant to Peter Pan provides coverage for damages owed because of, inter alia, ” bodily injury’ … caused by an accident’ and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto.'” Regardless of whether the plaintiff in the underlying action, having arrived at her destination on a Peter Pan bus and seen the driver unloading the passengers’ luggage, tripped over a suitcase while approaching her own suitcase or tripped on the curb while looking for her suitcase, her accident resulted from Peter Pan’s use of the bus, a covered auto, and defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify Peter Pan in the underlying action … . Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. v Hanover Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 00467, First Dept 1-25-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, INSURANCE LAW, INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))

/

INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer of a Peter Pan bus was obligated to defend and indemnify the bus company in an action brought by a passenger who fell attempting to pick up her luggage outside the bus:

​

The insurance policy issued by defendant to Peter Pan provides coverage for damages owed because of, inter alia, ” bodily injury’ … caused by an accident’ and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto.'” Regardless of whether the plaintiff in the underlying action, having arrived at her destination on a Peter Pan bus and seen the driver unloading the passengers’ luggage, tripped over a suitcase while approaching her own suitcase or tripped on the curb while looking for her suitcase, her accident resulted from Peter Pan’s use of the bus, a covered auto, and defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify Peter Pan in the underlying action … . Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. v Hanover Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 00467, First Dept 1-25-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, INSURANCE LAW, INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT))

/

CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) the presumption of legitimacy applies to a child born to a same-gender married couple after artificial insemination; (2) the presumption was not rebutted; (3) ordering a paternity test was not in the best interests of the child; and (4) the doctrine of equitable estoppel required the dismissal of the paternity petition. The mother inseminated herself with sperm with the consent of the donor. The parties had agreed the sperm donor waived any claims of paternity and any right to custody or visitation. The facts that the written agreement was destroyed and did not comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law 73 (formalities required for artificial insemination) did not preclude proof of legitimacy by other means. The opinion is comprehensive and too detailed to fairly summarize here:

​

While a workable rubric has not yet been developed to afford children the same protection regardless of the gender composition of their parents’ marriage, and the Legislature has not addressed this dilemma, we believe that it must be true that a child born to a same-gender married couple is presumed to be their child and, further, that the presumption of parentage is not defeated solely with proof of the biological fact that, at present, a child cannot be the product of same-gender parents … . If we were to conclude otherwise, children born to same-gender couples would be denied the benefit of this presumption without a compelling justification. * * *

​

… [I]nvocation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is warranted here “to protect the status interests of [the] child,” who was born to married parents and thereafter lived with them in a family unit … . While the child, now over three years old, was an infant when the paternity proceeding was commenced, we nonetheless find that petitioner’s representations in donating sperm combined with his delay in asserting parental rights compel against ordering a test. While young, the child’s “image of her family” — consisting of two mothers — would be devastated by an outsider, who merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights … . Matter of Christopher YY. v Jessica ZZ., 2018 NY Slip Op 00495, Third Dept 1-25-18

FAMILY LAW (CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/LEGITIMACY, PRESUMPTION OF (CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/PATERNITY (CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE (CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, (CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, CHILD BORN TO SAME-GENDER MARRIED COUPLE AFTER ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE SPERM DONOR’S PATERNITY PETITION (THIRD DEPT))

/

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the sentencing court did not make a youthful offender determination, which must be made in every case where a defendant is eligible. The matter was remitted for the determination:

​

CPL 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it … . Here, as the People correctly concede, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after making this determination … . We express no opinion as to whether the court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant. People v Keizer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00438, Second Dept 1-24-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a payment was made on an oral contract, thereby taking the contract out of the statute of frauds. The written contract (Assignment of Units) mentioned only a transfer of ownership of Emerson Associates. But there was a question of fact whether the payment was actually made pursuant to an oral contract to transfer ownership of Emerson Partners:​

[Defendant] raised triable issues of fact as to whether [plaintiffs] orally agreed to transfer their ownership interests in Emerson Partners and whether … such an agreement was not invalid under the statute of frauds because … the payments of $230,000 … constituted partial performance unequivocally referable to the oral agreement … . … [T]here was no evidence demonstrating that the alleged oral agreement had ” absolutely no possibility in fact and law'” of being performed within a year … . Meagher v Doscher, 2018 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-24-18

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACT (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL CONTRACT,  QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the motion to compel discovery because the requested documents were protected by the common interest privilege (an exception to the usual rule re: waiver of the attorney-client privilege):

The common-interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a third party waives the attorney-client privilege … . To fall within that exception, the privileged communication must be for the purpose of furthering a legal, as opposed to a commercial, interest common to the client and the third party… . “The legal interest that those parties have in common must be identical (or nearly identical), as opposed to merely similar” … . Moreover, the communication must “relate to litigation, either pending or anticipated, in order for the exception to apply” … . Saint Annes Dev. Co. v Russ, 2018 NY Slip Op 00451, Second Dept 1-24-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRIVILEGE, THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (COMMON INTEREST, THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (HE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (COMMON INTEREST, THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (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