| Board of Mgrs. of the Philip House Condominium v 141 E. 88th St., LLC |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 06537 |
| Decided on December 24, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York (Jon Kolbrener of counsel), for appellant.
Gartner + Bloom PC, New York (Susan P. Mahon of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered July 1, 2024, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to compel defendants 141 East 88th Street, LLC and The Cheshire Group, L.L.C. to produce outstanding discovery, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted to the extent of compelling production of documents designated "business confidential," and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for an in camera review to address plaintiff's challenges to defendants' remaining privilege assertions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendants do not dispute that the documents designated on their privilege logs as "business confidential" were improperly withheld from production. Thus, defendants must produce any documents withheld under that designation.
As to the documents that defendants withheld on the basis of other privileges, Supreme Court, in light of the sheer breadth of plaintiff's document requests, properly denied plaintiff's request for a "wholesale rejection" of defendants' privilege assertions and an immediate and full production of all the withheld documents. Nevertheless, plaintiff's motion to compel raised valid questions about certain designations on defendants' privilege logs, which listed more than 19,000 documents over 938 pages of entries, and defendants failed to oppose plaintiff's motion with additional details sufficient to explain the basis for their privilege assertions (see e.g. Gama Aviation Inc. v Sandton Capital Partners, L.P., 99 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2012]). As a result, defendant has not made a proper showing that all the documents were properly withheld as privileged. Plaintiff is entitled to in camera review of those documents so that Supreme Court can address its challenges to the privilege assertions (see Fragin v First Funds Holdings, LLC, 150 AD3d 410, 410 [1st Dept 2017]; NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 133 AD3d 46, 50 [1st Dept 2015]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: December 24, 2024