Niesig v. Team I case brief summary
76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1990)
FACTS:
-Plaintiff employee, who worked for third-party defendant construction company, brought suit against defendants contractor and owner after being injured at a construction site.
-He challenged the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York) that he could not conduct ex parte interviews of current construction company employees under N.Y. Jud. App., Code Prof. Resp. DR 7-104(A)(1).
HOLDING: Stating that a disciplinary rule did not have the force of law, the court wrote that in interpreting it, it was entitled to make its own decision in the interests of justice.
RULE:
-The court concluded that the test that best balanced the competing interests was one that defined "party" to include corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry were binding on the corporation or imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice of counsel.
ANALYSIS:
-Court rejects the control group test.
-Writing that the issue was which corporate employees should be deemed to be parties under the rule, which prohibited communications with represented parties, the court stated that the blanket rule against any contact with corporate employees adopted by the lower court was too broad, while the "control group" test, defining "party" to include only the most senior management exercising substantial control over the corporation, was too narrow.
-It concluded that the test that best balanced the competing interests was one that defined "party" to include corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry were binding on the corporation or imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice of counsel.
-Such a test, it stated, was consistent with the purpose of the rule, was rooted in developed concepts of the law of evidence and the law of agency, and was similar to that adopted by courts and bar associations throughout the country.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the lower court's order denying the employee's motion to permit ex parte interviews of current construction company employees.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1990)
FACTS:
-Plaintiff employee, who worked for third-party defendant construction company, brought suit against defendants contractor and owner after being injured at a construction site.
-He challenged the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York) that he could not conduct ex parte interviews of current construction company employees under N.Y. Jud. App., Code Prof. Resp. DR 7-104(A)(1).
HOLDING: Stating that a disciplinary rule did not have the force of law, the court wrote that in interpreting it, it was entitled to make its own decision in the interests of justice.
RULE:
-The court concluded that the test that best balanced the competing interests was one that defined "party" to include corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry were binding on the corporation or imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice of counsel.
ANALYSIS:
-Court rejects the control group test.
-Writing that the issue was which corporate employees should be deemed to be parties under the rule, which prohibited communications with represented parties, the court stated that the blanket rule against any contact with corporate employees adopted by the lower court was too broad, while the "control group" test, defining "party" to include only the most senior management exercising substantial control over the corporation, was too narrow.
-It concluded that the test that best balanced the competing interests was one that defined "party" to include corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry were binding on the corporation or imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice of counsel.
-Such a test, it stated, was consistent with the purpose of the rule, was rooted in developed concepts of the law of evidence and the law of agency, and was similar to that adopted by courts and bar associations throughout the country.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the lower court's order denying the employee's motion to permit ex parte interviews of current construction company employees.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment