Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
During discovery, Christopher A. Byrne, who was an attorney for the defendants in action No. 1 and for the plaintiffs in action No. 2, asserted that 55 e-mails were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, a litigation committee privilege, and/or a common interest privilege. After an exhaustive in camera review of those 55 e-mails, the Supreme Court determined that Byrne failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the documents contained confidential communications between an attorney and a client during the course of professional employment for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services and that they were primarily or predominantly of a legal, rather than a business, nature ( see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371; Rossi v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588; Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a sanction upon Byrne, because his claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; Lightron Corp. v J.S.M. Holdings, 188 AD2d 641). [Prior Case History: 21 Misc 3d 1118(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 52095(U).]