It is clear that whatever the nature of the law firm's past representation of plaintiff and its principal, the firm's current representation of defendants is unrelated thereto, and that at no time did the firm ever jointly represent the parties (cf., Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 137). While communications made between a defendant and counsel in the known presence of a third party generally are not privileged, an exception exists "for one serving as an agent of either attorney or client" (People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84). We are satisfied that once plaintiff commenced its employment with defendants, such employment was the only reason it attended meetings with the firm and was copied on the firm's documents, and there is no evidence that any of the material that plaintiff now seeks was ever disclosed to any outside parties. Defendants had every expectation that any communications between them and their counsel would remain confidential, including communications by plaintiff on their behalf, and, accordingly, we deny the motion in full.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.