Case Name: 570 Smith Street Corp. et al., Respondents, v. Seneca Ins. Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-03-21
Citations: 148 A.D.3d 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: 570 Smith Street Corp. et al., Respondents, v Seneca Ins. Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
570 Smith Street Corp. et al., Respondents, v Seneca Ins. Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
[50 NYS3d 57]

Opinion:
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.