From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoopes v. Carota

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 8, 1989
543 N.E.2d 73 (N.Y. 1989)

Summary

applying Garner's "good cause" for disclosure criterion on facts but otherwise declining expressly to adopt it as the law of the state

Summary of this case from Nunan v. Midwest, Inc.

Opinion

Argued April 27, 1989

Decided June 8, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, John G. Dier, J.

Michael T. Wallender, John T. DeGraff, Jr., and Jean M. Mahserjian for appellant.

Francis J. Holloway, H. Wayne Judge and Mary Ann D. Allen for respondents.


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 advice (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 69). Whether an attorney was consulted and who paid the legal fees do not ordinarily constitute such confidential communications (see, id.). We are not persuaded that the instant case falls outside the general rule (cf., Banco Frances e Brasilerio S.A. v Doe, 36 N.Y.2d 592, 599; Matter of Kaplan [Blumenfeld], 8 N.Y.2d 214, 218-219).

In addition, the Appellate Division correctly held — given the particular matters in issue about which disclosure was sought — that plaintiffs were entitled to inquire concerning the substance of the legal advice. It appears from the submissions that defendant consulted the attorneys, at least in part, in his capacity as trustee of the trust of which plaintiffs are beneficiaries. Under these circumstances, where a fiduciary relationship is present, some courts have held that the attorney-client privilege does not attach at all (see, United States v Evans, 796 F.2d 264, 265-266 [9th Cir]; Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild v Washington Star Co., 543 F. Supp. 906, 909 [DDC]; Riggs Natl. Bank v Zimmer, 355 A.2d 709, 713-714 [Del]) while other courts have held that the privilege attaches but that it may be set aside by a showing of good cause (see, Quintel Corp. v Citibank, 567 F. Supp. 1357, 1360-1362 [SD NY]; see also, Garner v Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093, 1103-1104 [5th Cir]). We agree with the Appellate Division that "good cause" is present here ( 142 A.D.2d 906, 910-911). Therefore, the communications are not privileged in any event.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the negative.


Summaries of

Hoopes v. Carota

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 8, 1989
543 N.E.2d 73 (N.Y. 1989)

applying Garner's "good cause" for disclosure criterion on facts but otherwise declining expressly to adopt it as the law of the state

Summary of this case from Nunan v. Midwest, Inc.

In Hoopes, the beneficiaries of a trust commenced an action to remove the named trustee amid allegations that the trustee proposed and obtained Board approval for salary increases for himself and another person, obtained approval for long-term employment contracts for various corporate officers and discouraged merger negotiations that were alleged to have been favorable for stockholders but less favorable to management.

Summary of this case from Stenovich v. for an Order Directing Wachtell

In Hoopes, the beneficiaries of a trust commenced an action to remove the named trustee amid allegations that the trustee proposed and obtained board approval for salary increases for himself and another person, obtained approval for long-term employment contracts for various corporate officers and discouraged merger negotiations that were alleged to have been favorable for stockholders but less favorable to management.

Summary of this case from Stenovich v. Wachtell, Lipton
Case details for

Hoopes v. Carota

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL P. HOOPES et al., Individually and as Trustees of the Trusts Made…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 8, 1989

Citations

543 N.E.2d 73 (N.Y. 1989)
543 N.E.2d 73
544 N.Y.S.2d 808

Citing Cases

Stock v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

FRIEDMAN, J. The primary issue on this appeal is whether attorneys who have sought the advice of their law…

Nunan v. Midwest, Inc.

Id. 875 F.Supp. at 651. The doctrine's application in New York is unsettled, Hoopes v. Carota, 142 AD2d 906,…