February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to find the documents are immune from disclosure (Miracle Sound v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 169 A.D.2d 468, 469) as attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [b], [c], [d] ). The attorney-client privilege applies only to confidential communications with counsel, not to information obtained from or communicated to third parties (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v. Ontario County Health Facility, 103 A.D.2d 1000, lv dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 816), or to underlying factual information (Miranda v. Miranda, 184 A.D.2d 286). Most of the documents at issue here were either disclosed to or authored by third parties, such as claims adjustors, or contained nonprivileged factual information, and cannot be considered attorney work product since they were not prepared by attorneys employed as such (Graf v. Aldrich, 94 A.D.2d 823, 824). Nor are the fee statements privileged since they did not contain detailed accounts of the legal services rendered (cf., Licensing Corp. v National Hockey League Players Assn., 153 Misc.2d 126).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.