New York Court of Appeals, 1998

Doe v. Poe

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 1, 1998 · Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur

700 N.E.2d 309; 92 N.Y.2d 864; 677 N.Y.S.2d 770; 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1839 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. O'Neil (Nassau County District Court 2014)
Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re the Estate of DelGatto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re the Estate of DelGatto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Huang v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Cain v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Kairis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Conway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Bib Construction Co. v. City of Poughkeepsie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

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

*867 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The facts relevant to this appeal are set forth in an opinion in an earlier appeal to the Appellate Division (see, Doe v Poe, 189 AD2d 132), and in the Appellate Division’s memorandum decision in this appeal (244 AD2d 450).

Supreme Court’s refusal to unseal the record of the hearing it conducted in the earlier related proceeding was premised on the erroneous assumption that the record may contain privileged information. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the communications and documents in question are not protected by the attorney-client privilege inasmuch as an attorney, Mr. P., attended the meetings in a nonrepresentative capacity. Communications between a client and an attorney made in the presence of third parties are not privileged (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 343, cert denied 460 US 1047). Appellants, in opposition to the application to unseal the record at Supreme Court, failed to submit any proof to support their claim that Mr. P. was acting as an attorney or an agent for the bank at either of the meetings in question. We have reviewed appellants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.