Legal Opinion
Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 4, 2014No. 651612/10PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Moskowitz, J.
In general, the presence of a third party at a communication between counsel and client is sufficient to deprive the communication of confidentiality. However, there is an exception to this rule: the common-interest privilege. Under this doctrine, a third party may be present at the communication between an attorney and a client without destroying the privilege if the communication is for the purpose of furthering a nearly identical legal interest shared by the client and the third party. New York courts have taken a narrow view of the common-interest…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Liberman v. GelsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re Teleglobe Communications Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Spectrum Systems International v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2016
- Levy v. Arbor Commercial Funding, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Matter of San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2016
- Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Houston Cas. Co.New York Supreme Court · 2016