Case ID: ad3d_148/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

570 Smith Street Corp. et al., Respondents, v Seneca Ins. Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    [50 NYS3d 57]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 23, 2016, which directed defendant insurer to produce documents that it had claimed were subject to the attorney-client privilege, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and the directive vacated.

In this action for breach of contract based on defendant insurer’s failure to pay benefits due under an insurance policy, plaintiffs objected, in a letter to Supreme Court, to defendant’s withholding of certain correspondence between it and its counsel on the ground that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Following an in camera inspection, the court directed defendant to produce the documents to plaintiff.

Following our own in camera review of the correspondence between defendant and its counsel, we conclude that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the correspondence is predominantly of a legal character (see Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588, 593 [1989]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.