¶1Order entered May 23, 1968 directing the issuance of letters rogatory, herein appealed from, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to allow all items in the proposed interrogatories except the following: Items 6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f); Items 7(a), (b); Items 13(a), (b); Items 14(d), (f), (g), (h); Item 15; Items 22(a), (b), (e), (d), (e); Item 23 and Item 24. As so modified the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. We conclude that it was error to exclude certain items which properly sought to establish the attorney-client relationship and the terms thereof to establish Dr. van der Does’ authority to appear for defendant in the Netherlands action. In our opinion the items allowed do not infringe upon *514any privileged attorney-client relationship (Gallagher v. Akoff Realty Corp., 197 Misc. 460; see 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses, § 509; 97 C. J. S., Witnesses, § 287; 97 C. J. S., Witnesses, 283, subd. e, p. 802). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.
31 A.D.2d 513
Jansen v. Hart
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 7, 1968
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1968-11-07
Relies on Gallagher v. Akoff Realty Corp.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1968-11-07
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1993
1 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →