People v. Belge

In People v. Belge (50 AD2d 1088 [4th Dept 1975]), the Court questioned the absolute privilege doctrine in a case where the attorney was representing a defendant charged under the Public Health Law for violating the rights of burial and failure to give notice of death. While recognizing the attorney-client privilege shielded the attorney from liability in the case, the Court noted: "In view of the fact that the claim of absolute privilege was proffered, we note that the privilege is not all-encompassing and that in a given case there may be conflicting considerations. We believe that an attorney must protect his client's interests, but also must observe basic human standards of decency, having due regard to the need that the legal system accord justice to the interests of society and its individual members." (Id. at 1088.) In People v. Belge, 41 N.Y.2d 60 (1976), the Court of Appeals called for amendment of CPL 210.40, arguing that "to the extent that the section now fails to prescribe specific criteria for the responsible exercise of the discretion granted by the section and fails to require the court to articulate the manner and extent to which the particular case meets such criteria, it is open to misuse and effective appellate review is made difficult, if not impossible." (41 N.Y.2d at 62.)