Legal Opinion
Hoopes v. Carota
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 8, 1989PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Appellate Division that Supreme Court correctly determined that the attorney-client privilege was not applicable to certain questions asked defendant at his examination before trial. Accordingly, defendant was properly compelled to answer.
The questions regarding whether legal advice was obtained and how such advice was paid for were not protected. The attorney-client privilege extends only to confidential communications made to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Priest v. HennessyNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C. v. ZimmerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1976
- Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Local 35 v. Washington Star Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- Matter of Kaplan (Blumenfeld)New York Court of Appeals · 1960
- Quintel Corp., N v. v. Citibank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Martin v. Valley National BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Supreme Court · 2000
- United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.