Opinion
November 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to compel the disclosure of communications between the plaintiff and his former attorneys given the fact that the plaintiff has not waived the attorney-client privilege (see, CPLR 4503 [a]; Cirale v. 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 N.Y.2d 113). Moreover, the case at bar does not present exceptional circumstances warranting the disclosure of this privileged information (cf., Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215; see also, Matter of Weinberg, 129 A.D.2d 126). On this point, we note that the defendant's allegations of fraud on the part of the plaintiff are not substantiated by the record and are thus insufficient to overcome the attorney-client privilege (see, Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15). Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.