History
  • No items yet
midpage
Manning v. Sikorskyj
204 A.D.2d 976
N.Y. App. Div.
1994
Check Treatment

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: *977The record reflects that the attorney conducted the interview in question while acting as attorney for the estate of Lisa M. Manning, and we conclude that the tape recording of the interview was protected from discovery as attorney work product (see, CPLR 3101 [c]). It is not necessary for us to decide whether the tape is also protected by the attorney-client privilege on the ground that, at the time, the attorney was also representing Mary Beth Manning. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Discovery.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Manning v. Sikorskyj
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: May 27, 1994
Citation: 204 A.D.2d 976
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.