New York Court of Appeals, 1989

Hoopes v. Carota

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 8, 1989

74 N.Y.2d 716; 543 N.E.2d 73; 544 N.Y.S.2d 808; 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 660

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Martin v. Valley National Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty. (Cal. 2000)
Stock v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Hammerman v. Northern Trust Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)
Murphy v. Gorman (District Court, D. New Mexico 2010)
Official Committee of Asbestos of G-I Holding, Inc. v. Heyman (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
Lawrence v. Cohn (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
United States v. Doe (9th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C. (2d Cir. 1991)
United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C. (2d Cir. 1991)
Abrahami v. Meister Seelig & Fein LLP (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
Bonde v. Wexler & Kaufman, PLLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
Sparrow Fund Management LP v. Mimedx Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
In re Nelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Stewart (New York Supreme Court 1989)
99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware v. Hadley Fisher (Court of Chancery of Delaware 2019)
NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Greenberg Traurig LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re Claydon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Claydon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re the Bank of New York Mellon (New York Supreme Court 2013)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena June 30, 2003 (New York Supreme Court 2003)
Stenovich v. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York Supreme Court 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that Supreme Court correctly determined that the attorney-client privilege was not applicable to certain questions asked defendant at his examination before trial. Accordingly, defendant was properly compelled to answer.

The questions regarding whether legal advice was obtained and how such advice was paid for were not protected. The attorney-client privilege extends only to confidential communications made to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 69). Whether an attorney was consulted and who paid the legal fees do not ordinarily constitute such confidential communications (see, id.). We are not persuaded that the instant case falls outside the general rule (cf., Banco Frances e Brasilerio S. A. v Doe, 36 NY2d 592, 599; Matter of Kaplan [Blumenfeld], 8 NY2d 214, 218-219).

In addition, the Appellate Division correctly held — given the particular matters in issue about which disclosure was sought —that plaintiffs were entitled to inquire concerning the substance of the legal advice. It appears from the submissions that defendant consulted the attorneys, at least in part, in his capacity as trustee of the trust of which plaintiffs are benefi*718claries. Under these circumstances, where a fiduciary relationship is present, some courts have held that the attorney-client privilege does not attach at all (see, United States v Evans, 796 F2d 264, 265-266 [9th Cir]; Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild v Washington Star Co., 543 F Supp 906, 909 [DDC]; Riggs Natl. Bank v Zimmer, 355 A2d 709, 713-714 [Del]) while other courts have held that the privilege attaches but that it may be set aside by a showing of good cause (see, Quintel Corp. v Citibank, 567 F Supp 1357, 1360-1362 [SD NY]; see also, Garner v Wolfinbarger, 430 F2d 1093, 1103-1104 [5th Cir]). We agree with the Appellate Division that "good cause” is present here (142 AD2d 906, 910-911). Therefore, the communications are not privileged in any event.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the negative.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.