Appellant fails to sustain its burden of establishing that any of the 16 documents falls under the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges ( see, Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 69), since the documents either were disclosed to, or made by, third parties ( see, Eisic Trading Corp. v. Somerset Mar., 212 A.D.2d 451) not in an agency relationship with appellant ( see, Le Long v. Siebrecht, 196 App. Div. 74, 76), or were of a business, rather than legal, nature ( see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 377-378). We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.