The National Rifle Association will not be allowed to have an attorney attend an upcoming deposition of its former president, Oliver North, set to be conducted by the New York Attorney General’s Office, a state judge in Manhattan ruled Monday.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Melissa Crane, in both a ruling from the bench and a written decision later Monday, rejected the NRA’s request to have an attorney present for the interview.

The NRA immediately sought to appeal that decision to the Appellate Division, First Department, but Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer denied the application, according to sources familiar with the litigation.

The deposition, which is scheduled for Tuesday, is part of an investigation from New York into the NRA and its finances. Attorney General Letitia James said in April that her office was looking into claims of misconduct by the organization related to the state’s oversight of nonprofit entities.

Attorneys from her office gave notice to North late last month that they were seeking his testimony as part of that investigation. The gun-rights advocacy group, thereafter, requested that they be allowed to have an attorney present for the interview.

The NRA argued in its petition filed Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court that its attorneys should be allowed to attend the interview in case North reveals any information they would consider to be privileged or confidential.

The NRA is represented by attorneys from Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, which has offices in New York and Dallas.

Crane said in her written decision after the hearing Monday morning that the state had no plans to pursue privileged information from North during the interview and that they would “cut him off” if he started to reveal anything confidential during his testimony. North also has his own attorney, who can monitor privileged information, Crane wrote.

North is represented by his longtime attorney Brendan Sullivan from Williams & Connolly. Neither North nor Sullivan were part of the NRA’s petition.

“Mr. North has his own counsel who can protect the privilege, and is likely to protect the privilege given that otherwise Mr. North could be vulnerable to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty,” Crane wrote.

She also said in the decision that allowing an attorney for the NRA to attend a deposition related to an investigation into the association could hamper the integrity of that probe.

“Having the NRA or its Board sit in on an investigatory deposition by law enforcement could have the serious consequence of compromising the integrity of that investigation, particularly given the seemingly acrimonious relationship between Mr. North and the NRA Board,” Crane wrote.

The New York Attorney General’s Office has labeled the NRA’s request to attend the hearing as an effort to interfere with their investigation of the group. That inquiry hasn’t led to any civil litigation or other enforcement action from the state as of yet, but the investigation is ongoing.

Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Monday afternoon that Crane’s decision will allow them to glean more information from North than they otherwise would have with an attorney from the NRA present.

“Despite the NRA’s best efforts to silence board members, justice will prevail, and the truth will be exposed, because no one is above the law,” James said. “We are pleased with today’s decision because the NRA should never be allowed to stifle a legal investigation.”

William Brewer III, a founding partner of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, responded to James in a statement Monday evening, saying she had misrepresented what they were seeking in court, and what the decision issued Monday meant.

“The Attorney General flatly misstates the basis and consequence of today’s ruling,” Brewer said. “The NRA never sought to ‘silence’ any of its Board members. None of the NRA’s Board members – not even Lt. Col. North – sought to exclude the NRA’s counsel from the examination. In fact, one Board member filed an affidavit urging that the NRA be allowed to participate.”

The NRA, in its petition filed Friday, had argued that they wanted an attorney in the room to prevent North from revealing any privileged information.

After North received the subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s Office in late July, the NRA asked his attorney if they could review any documents he planned to share with the state. Nearly 900 pages of documents were then sent to attorneys for the gun lobby group, which reviewed them over several days last week.

Attorneys for the NRA found at least one instance where information North planned to disclose to the state would be considered privileged, and made several other redactions.

Given that there was information in the documents they felt shouldn’t be available to the state, the NRA also asked to sit in on North’s deposition. That request, which neither North nor his attorney were part of, was rejected by the state. That spurred the petition filed Friday.

Brewer said they were disappointed they wouldn’t be allowed in the room for North’s deposition, but were “encouraged” by part of Crane’s decision that affirmed the protection of privileged information.

It’s the latest legal dispute between New York state and the National Rifle Association, which has an unrelated lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a state agency over official actions that the group has claimed will stifle their free speech rights in the state. That litigation is ongoing.

READ MORE: