Opinion
9668N Index 653488/15
06-18-2019
PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael A. KRAMER, et al., Defendants. [And a Third–Party Action] Cody Leung Kaldenberg, et al., Nonparty Respondents.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York (Jonathan D. Schiller of counsel), for appellants. Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York (Lisa C. Solbakken of counsel), for respondents.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York (Jonathan D. Schiller of counsel), for appellants.
Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York (Lisa C. Solbakken of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered July 23, 2018, which, after in camera review, determined that certain emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Nonparty respondents were seeking legal advice through third parties and had a reasonable expectation that their communications would remain confidential, as the communications set forth specific legal questions (see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 377–378, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055 [1991] ; People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 550 N.Y.S.2d 612, 549 N.E.2d 1183 [1989] ). That neither nonparty respondent had a retainer agreement is of no moment because, so long as the communications are for the purpose of rendering legal advice, the privilege applies even in the absence of a retainer agreement (see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. at 378–379, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055 ; Seyler v. T–Sys. N. Am., Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 284, 287 [S.D. N.Y.2011] ).