From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VGFC Realty II, LLC v. D'Angelo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2014
114 A.D.3d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-02-13

VGFC REALTY II, LLC, respondent, v. Carmine P. D'ANGELO, et al., defendants, QBE Insurance Group, appellant.

Abrams, Gorelick, Freidman & Jacobson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alexandra E. Rigney of counsel), for appellant. William Greenberg, Purchase, N.Y., for respondent.



Abrams, Gorelick, Freidman & Jacobson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alexandra E. Rigney of counsel), for appellant. William Greenberg, Purchase, N.Y., for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant QBE Insurance Group is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled Guminiak v. VGFC Realty II, LLC, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 25170/08, the defendant QBE Insurance Group appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered February 25, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel it to disclose documents designated in its privilege log as GBE 0257–0260, GBE 0290–0292, and GBE 0330–0338.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendant QBE Insurance Group to disclose documents designated in its privilege log as GBE 0257–0260, GBE 0290–0292, and GBE 0330–0338 are denied.

The Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the appellant to disclose documents designated in its privilege log as GBE 0257–0260, GBE 0290–0292, and GBE 0330–0338, as those documents were absolutely immune from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege ( seeCPLR 3101[b]; Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 376, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055). The subject documents, which were submitted to the Supreme Court for in camera review, were primarily and predominantly legal in nature, and were made in order to render legal advice or services ( see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d at 378–379, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055;Matter of Rye Police Assn. v. City of Rye, 34 A.D.3d 591, 591, 824 N.Y.S.2d 163;All Waste Sys. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 379, 380, 743 N.Y.S.2d 535).


Summaries of

VGFC Realty II, LLC v. D'Angelo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2014
114 A.D.3d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

VGFC Realty II, LLC v. D'Angelo

Case Details

Full title:VGFC REALTY II, LLC, respondent, v. Carmine P. D'ANGELO, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 13, 2014

Citations

114 A.D.3d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
114 A.D.3d 765
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 989

Citing Cases

Teran v. Ast

Here, upon our in camera inspection, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in…

Celani v. Allstate Indem. Co.

We agree with defendant, however, that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiff's…