In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Bekins Record Storage Co., 95 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Bekins Record Storage Co., 95 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 5 distinct cases, 2024–2025 · 2 courts · …some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add at p. 656 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
38 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fairmont 88 LLC v. Fang Yu
Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Corp. v. City of New York , 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Four Thirty Realty LLC v. Kamal (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2024 · confidence medium
Corp. v. City of New York , 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1983] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ellington Owners Corp. v. 200 Bradhurst Devs. LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York , 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1983], quoting Siegel, New York Practice § 237 at 289).
cited Cited as authority (rule) dMY Sponsor, LLC v. Glatt
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York , 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1983], quoting Siegel, New York Practice § 237 at 289).
cited Cited as authority (rule) dMY Sponsor, LLC v. Glatt
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York , 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1983], quoting Siegel, New York Practice § 237 at 289).
cited Cited as authority (rule) GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Coombs
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York , 95 AD2d at 656; Surlak v Surlak , 95 AD2d at 383-384; cf. Edenwald Contr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Tompkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York, 95 AD2d 655, 656 [1st Dept 1983] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Admae Enterprises, Ltd. v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp. v City of New York, 95 AD2d 655, 656).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zotpri LLC v. Burton (2×)
Civ. Ct. NYC, Bronx Cty. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also A J Pegno Constr Corp v New York (95 AD2d 655, 656, 463 NYS2d 214, 215 [1st Dep't 1983])(describing the prejudice which must be shown as, "some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Matter of Bekins Storage Co., 118 Misc.2d 173, 179 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 684, 691 (Sup.Ct.1983), rev’d in part on other gds., 95 A.D.2d 655 , 463 N.Y.S.2d 213 (1st Dep’t 1983), mod. and aff'd, 62 N.Y.2d 324 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806 , 465 N.E.2d 345 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Bekins Record Storage Co., Inc. A., Appellants Robert M. Morgenthau
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 7, 1983.
95 A.D.2d 655
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

— That portion of the order, relating to documents Nos. 38 and 145, of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), entered on March 1, 1983, determination of the appeal thereto having previously been held in abeyance by order of this court (94 AD2d 643), entered on May 10, 1983, is reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and the subpoena quashed as to documents Nos. 38 and 145. Document No. 38 is an unexecuted agreement drafted by an attorney at the request of his client. Document No. 145 is a cover letter prepared by an attorney conveying a proposed agreement for execution in connection with a matter in which he was representing his client. Both documents constitute confidential communications made to a lawyer in the course of obtaining legal advice or services and are thus privileged. (Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Bloom, Fein, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.