Opinion
May 6, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Appellant fails to sustain its burden of establishing that any of the 16 documents falls under the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges ( see, Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 69), since the documents either were disclosed to, or made by, third parties ( see, Eisic Trading Corp. v. Somerset Mar., 212 A.D.2d 451) not in an agency relationship with appellant ( see, Le Long v. Siebrecht, 196 App. Div. 74, 76), or were of a business, rather than legal, nature ( see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 377-378). We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.