Opinion
May 28, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.).
In its dual role as advocate for and guardian of the subject child ( see, Family Ct Act § 241; Matter of Samuel W., 24 N.Y.2d 196, revd on other grounds sub nom. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358; Marquez v. Presbyterian Hosp., 159 Misc.2d 617), Lawyers for Children clearly has an interest in the welfare of the child sufficient to give it standing to seek a change of custody ( cf., Matter of Janet S.M.M. v. Commissioner of Social Servs., 158 Misc.2d 851). The child's communications with the Law Guardian ( Matter of Angelina AA. ( 211 A.D.2d 951, 953, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 808), as well as with the social worker hired by the Law Guardian ( Matter of Lenny McN., 183 A.D.2d 627), implicate the attorney-client privilege, or the immunity from disclosure for attorney work product and material prepared for litigation, and thus, the subpoenas demanding the testimony of the Law Guardian and the social worker were properly quashed. Respondent's motion to disqualify the court-appointed psychiatrist for bias was also properly denied for lack of proof ( see, Virgo v. Bonavilla, 71 A.D.2d 1051, affd 49 N.Y.2d 982).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.