NETHERBY LIMITED v. Gloria Vanderbilt Trademark B.V., Defendant-Appellant. (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

NETHERBY LIMITED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. G.V. TRADEMARK INVESTMENTS, LTD., et al., Defendants, Gloria Vanderbilt Trademark B.V., Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: May 06, 1999

WILLIAMS, J.P., RUBIN, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS and BUCKLEY, JJ.

Thomas J. Hall, for Plaintiff-Respondent. Marc L. Herskovitz, for Defendant-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 8, 1998, which, inter alia, directed defendant-appellant to produce 16 documents in compliance with a discovery order of the Special Master, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant fails to sustain its burden of establishing that any of the 16 documents falls under the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges (see, Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 69, 431 N.Y.S.2d 511, 409 N.E.2d 983), since the documents either were disclosed to, or made by, third parties (see, Eisic Trading Corp. v. Somerset Mar., 212 A.D.2d 451, 622 N.Y.S.2d 728) not in an agency relationship with appellant (see, LeLong v. Siebrecht, 196 App.Div. 74, 76, 187 N.Y.S. 150), or were of a business, rather than legal, nature (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 377-378, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055). We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network