Opinion
May 23, 1994
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The information sought from the nonparty appellant is primarily related to a non-legal business transaction and does not implicate confidential communications between an attorney and a client (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371; Rossi v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 73 N.Y.2d 588, 593; People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309). In any event, should the attorney-client privilege be implicated at the deposition, the appellant may make an objection at that time (see, 305-7 W. 128th St. Corp. v. Gold, 178 A.D.2d 251; Verschell v. Pike, 65 A.D.2d 622).
The Surrogate has broad discretion in revoking letters of administration based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, SCPA 711, 713; Stolz v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 269, 270). Therefore, it cannot be said that the information sought by the subpoena is irrelevant. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, O'Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.