From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stafford v. A&e Real Estate Holdings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 30, 2021
192 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

13467N Index No. 655500/16 Case No. 2020-04125

03-30-2021

John STAFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. A&E REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York ( Roger Sachar of counsel), for appellants. Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York ( John Siegal of counsel), for respondents.


Newman Ferrara LLP, New York ( Roger Sachar of counsel), for appellants.

Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York ( John Siegal of counsel), for respondents.

Gische, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered September 18, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to compel production of documents involving plaintiffs’ communications with the Housing Rights Initiative (HRI), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion by determining that the communications at issue were not privileged and by compelling the production of these communications. The common interest privilege "requires that the communication otherwise qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege and that it be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties asserting it" ( Matter of San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 547, 548, 25 N.Y.S.3d 192 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Plaintiffs, as "[t]he proponent of the privilege[,] bear[ ] the burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from disclosure" ( People v. Greenberg, 50 A.D.3d 195, 200, 851 N.Y.S.2d 196 [1st Dept. 2008]citing Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 377, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055 [1991] ).

Here, plaintiffs assert that their communications with HRI and counsel were for the purposes of litigation planning and strategy. However, plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing that HRI has any interest in this litigation for the common interest privilege to apply.

Moreover, we reject plaintiffs’ reliance on Real Property § 230(1) to create a blanket privilege protecting tenants’ communications with HRI. The statute provides, in relevant part, "No landlord shall interfere with the right of a tenant to form, join or participate in the lawful activities of any group, committee or other organization formed to protect the rights of tenants." However, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that these communications were privileged. Plaintiffs failed to submit any specific information concerning HRI's role in this litigation, whether it acted as an agent for the attorneys or plaintiffs, or how HRI facilitated communications between plaintiffs and their attorneys.


Summaries of

Stafford v. A&e Real Estate Holdings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 30, 2021
192 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Stafford v. A&e Real Estate Holdings

Case Details

Full title:John Stafford, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A&E Real Estate Holdings…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 30, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
192 A.D.3d 648
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1956

Citing Cases

Stafford v. A&E Real Estate Holdings, LLC

The Court has previously resolved multiple discovery disputes between the parties. (Stafford v A&E Real…

Napoli v. Bern

Paul Napoli, as the proponent of the privilege, bears the burden of establishing that the information sought…