People v. Belge
| Decision Date | 14 November 1977 |
| Citation | 399 N.Y.S.2d 539,59 A.D.2d 307 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis R. BELGE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Francis R. Belge, pro se.
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Organized Crime Task Force, Albany, for respondent.
Before MOULE, J. P., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, DILLON and HANCOCK, JJ.
On June 1, 1977 the appellant appeared before an Onondaga County Grand Jury pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum requesting that he produce "any and all corporate records pertaining to Butternut and Salina Grocery and News, Inc., including but not limited to a Copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Minutes of Stockholders and Directors meetings and stock ledgers." The appellant testified before the Grand Jury that he is an attorney and represents B&S Grocery and News Store Inc.; that he has certain corporate records but does not have the corporate ledger, stock book or minute books; and that he has only "statements made by officers of the corporation" pertaining to a claim for loss in fire pursuant to an insurance claim. The appellant refused to present those records to the Grand Jury stating, "I will not make available to you the written statements I have in my possession". Appellant claimed that such were privileged communications between an attorney and his client. Several more directions to appear with the corporate records were issued to appellant by the County Court, all of which were refused on the same ground.
The matter culminated in a request by the Court that appellant produce the items before him, in camera. Upon appellant's refusal to allow the Court to view the material, the County Court Judge determined that this failure to comply with the Grand Jury's subpoena was a willful and arbitrary act contemptuous of the order of the Court which directed appellant to produce all such corporate records in his possession before the Grand Jury. Appellant was thereupon sentenced to the Onondaga County Correctional Facility at Jamesville.
Under the mistaken belief that appellant was asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege, the County Court concluded that since a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege available, appellant could not assert such privilege. It appears to us, however, from appellant's somewhat confusing statements to the Trial Court, that appellant was not asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege on behalf of a corporation, but rather asserting the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship. It is appellant's contention that a corporate client is entitled to assert the privilege of a confidential communication between itself and its attorney and that the memoranda in his possession were privileged. At oral argument appellant attorney revealed to this Court that the information requested was a retainer statement. The terms of an attorney's retainer agreement are not privileged (Matter of Glines v. Estate of Baird, 16 A.D.2d 743, 227 N.Y.S.2d 71; Registered Country Home Builders v. Lanchantin, 10 A.D.2d 721, 198 N.Y.S.2d 767; People v. Cook, 82 Misc.2d 875, 372 N.Y.S.2d 10).
[3-5] "A corporation like any other client is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege" (Bell v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sec. v. Ryan
...(retainer agreements are not privileged from discovery under the attorney-client privilege); People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 308, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y.App. Div. 4th Dep't 1977) (the retainer agreement is not privileged); see also Spectrum Sys. Int'l v. Chem. Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 379, 575 N......
-
Orange County Publications, Inc., a Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. County of Orange
...the attorney was informed, an opinion on law, or legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding. People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept.1977), quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-359 (D.Mass.1950). The burden of proving all ......
-
Bekins Storage Co., Matter of
...the context of the privilege means an opinion of law, legal services, or assistance in a legal proceeding. (People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 [4th Dept., 1977]; Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 68-69, 431 N.Y.S.2d 511, 409 N.E.2d 983 [1980].) The purpose of th......
-
Priest v. Hennessy
...in his capacity as such for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. (CPLR 4503, subd. (a); see, e. g., People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539; United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-359, supra ; 8 Wigmore, § 2292.) Second, not all commu......
-
Privileges
...attorney-client privilege, as it was not a confidential communication between a client—the corporation—and its attorney. People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept. 1977). An attorney was properly held in contempt for failing to produce, in response to subpoena, a retainer s......
-
Privileges
...attorney-client privilege, as it was not a conidential communication between a client—the corporation—and its attorney. People v. Belge , 59 A.D.2d 307, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept. 1977). An attorney was properly held in contempt for failing to produce, in response to subpoena, a retainer s......
-
Privileges
...attorney-client privilege, as it was not a conidential communication between a client—the corporation—and its attorney. People v. Belge , 59 A.D.2d 307, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept. 1977). An attorney was properly held in contempt for failing to produce, in response to subpoena, a retainer s......
-
Privileges
...privilege, as it was not a confidential communication between a client—the corporation—and its attorney. People v. Belge , 59 A.D.2d 307, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept. 1977). An attorney was properly held in contempt for failing to produce, in response to subpoena, a retainer statement betwee......