Legal Opinion
Howard Rosengarten, P.C. v. Hott
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 11, 2008PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant’s contention that the materials sought are protected by the attorney-client privilege was not raised in opposi*329tion to the original motion to compel disclosure, and accordingly, it is not preserved (see e.g. Murray v City of New York, 195 AD2d 379, 381 [1993]). Were we to consider the argument, we would find that the subject documents are material and necessary to the resolution of the instant action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]), and that defendant failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the documents are entitled to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Spectrum Systems International v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Priest v. HennessyNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Murray v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Diaz v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by8 opinions
- Van Sharma, Inc. v. ChamberlainAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Colantonio v. Mercy Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Colantonio v. Mercy Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Giron v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Giron v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.