MARGOLIN v. GROSSMAN

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Laurence S. MARGOLIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Morton GROSSMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Decided: October 20, 1998

Before NARDELLI, J.P., WALLACH, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ. Aaron Gelbwaks, for Plaintiff-Respondent. Defendants-Appellants, Pro Se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered April 24, 1998, which, in an action by an attorney against other attorneys to recover fees claimed owing in connection with five lawsuits in which plaintiff acted “of counsel” to defendants, denied defendants' motion for a protective order and granted plaintiff's cross motion to compel disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Since plaintiff contests defendants' position that, as per their agreement, plaintiff in fact received 50% of the amounts received by defendants from their clients for the five matters in question, the fee arrangements between defendants and these five clients is material and necessary.   Attorneys' fee arrangements and bills are not within the scope of the attorney-client privilege (see, Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 431 N.Y.S.2d 511, 409 N.E.2d 983;  Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46, 52), and the challenged discovery notice and interrogatories do not otherwise warrant limitation or regulation as burdensome (see, Bassett v. Bando Sangsa Co., 94 A.D.2d 358, 361, 464 N.Y.S.2d 500, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 962, 471 N.Y.S.2d 84, 459 N.E.2d 193).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.