Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Homapour v. Harounian
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 07030Docket: Index No. 653795/15 Appeal No. 16878 Case No. 2022-02421
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 12, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Homapour v. Harounian (2022 NY Slip Op 07030), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed a prior order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The order, issued by Justice Joel M. Cohen on May 11, 2022, granted the defendants' exception to a Special Referee's report and determined that certain meeting notes were protected by attorney-client privilege. The court conducted an in camera review and exercised its discretion to find that the notes taken during a meeting between defendant Mark Harounian and his divorce counsel were indeed privileged, despite the presence of a third party, Lennie Estipular, who was Harounian's long-time employee and personal assistant. An agency agreement prepared by Harounian's counsel identified Estipular as an agent in the divorce proceedings, tasked with activities directed by the counsel to maintain privilege. The plaintiffs argued that Estipular's presence negated the privilege, claiming she was not necessary for transmitting legal advice. However, the court concluded that Estipular's role in taking notes facilitated the attorney-client communications, allowing Harounian to focus on the conversation rather than note-taking. As such, the agency exception to the privilege applied, and the privilege was upheld despite Estipular's presence at the meeting. This decision reinforces the applicability of attorney-client privilege even with third-party presence when the third party acts as an agent facilitating communication. The order was affirmed with costs to the defendants.