Bombardier Capital Inc. v Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.

Bombardier Capital Inc. v Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 2007 NY Slip Op 09885 [46 AD3d 323] December 13, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Bombardier Capital Inc., Respondent,
v
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., Appellant.

—[*1] Davidoff Malito & Hutcher LLP, New York City (Larry Hutcher of counsel), for appellant.

McGuire Woods LLP, New York City (Jacob P. Hildner of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lerner, J.), entered July 24, 2007, which denied respondent's motion to quash a nonparty subpoena duces tecum, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for an in camera inspection of the demanded documents and a determination of respondent's claims of privilege.

Respondent having moved, on the basis of the attorney work-product privilege, to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to a commission issued by a Florida court, it was incumbent upon the motion court to review the subpoena for its inclusion of such privileged material (Matter of Kirkland & Ellis v Chadbourne & Parke, 176 Misc 2d 73, 77 [1998]; see generally Matter of Stenovich v Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 195 Misc 2d 99 [2003]).

Accordingly, the action is remanded for inspection of the demanded documents and a determination of respondent's claims of attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation (see e.g. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v Stamm, 268 AD2d 276 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.