Matter of Richter v. Cardozo

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the Corporation Counsel's authority to provide statutory interpretation and legal guidance to the New York City Police Pension Fund Medical Board regarding the safeguards statute. The court held that the communication was not barred by attorney-client privilege. It modified the judgment to clarify that the Board of Trustees may independently interpret statutes and disagree with its counsel, subject to judicial review.

Holdings

1. The Corporation Counsel was authorized to communicate with and provide legal direction to the Medical Board because the Medical Board was his client and the communication fell within his statutory duty to conduct the legal business of the City and its agencies.
2. The communication was not barred by attorney-client privilege attaching to either the Police Pension Fund Board of Trustees or Richter individually.
3. The Board of Trustees is empowered to disagree with the Corporation Counsel on statutory interpretation and to reach its own position, subject to appropriate judicial review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Corporation Counsel could provide the Police Pension Fund Medical Board with legal advice and statutory interpretation concerning Administrative Code § 13-254.
2. Whether attorney-client privilege barred the Corporation Counsel's communication with the Medical Board.
3. Whether the Police Pension Fund Board of Trustees was prohibited from disagreeing with the Corporation Counsel and engaging in its own statutory interpretation.

Disposition

affirmed