From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bombardier v. Schoengold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 13, 2007
46 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

December 13, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lerner, J.), entered July 24, 2007, which denied respondent's motion to quash a nonparty subpoena duces tecum, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for an in camera inspection of the demanded documents and a determination of respondent's claims of privilege.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


Respondent having moved, on the basis of the attorney workproduct privilege, to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to a commission issued by a Florida court, it was incumbent upon the motion court to review the subpoena for its inclusion of such privileged material ( Matter of Kirkland Ellis v Chadbourne Parke, 176 Misc 2d 73, 77; see generally Matter of Stenovich v Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz, 195 Misc 2d 99).

Accordingly, the action is remanded for inspection of the demanded documents and a determination of respondent's claims of attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation ( see e.g. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v Stamm, 268 AD2d 276).


Summaries of

Bombardier v. Schoengold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 13, 2007
46 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Bombardier v. Schoengold

Case Details

Full title:BOMBARDIER CAPITAL INC., Respondent, v. SCHOENGOLD SPORN LAITMAN LOMETTI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 13, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
847 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

IN RE APPL OF HOLLANDER FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE VIDEO

Additionally, much of the material is protected from discovery as being subject to the attorney-client…

In Matter of Martinez v. Weinberg-Brodt

See Id at 484; Jarvis v. Jarvis, 141 Misc 2d at 407. The court distinguishes Bombardier Capital Inc. v.…