Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.

49 A.D.3d 438, 854 N.Y.2d 65

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 438 (Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 49 A.D.3d 438, 854 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

As the information sought is available from the defendants in the Florida action, who have already been deposed in the pending federal action, and there is considerable risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues in deposing respondents, petitioner’s motion to compel respondents to comply with the deposition subpoenas should have been denied (see Corcoran v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 151 AD2d 443 [1989]). Indeed, work-product issues are pending in connection with a subpoena duces tecum (see 46 AD3d 323 [2007]).

We perceive no basis to disturb the denial of respondents’ motion for sanctions under Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

As the information sought is available from the defendants in the Florida action, who have already been deposed in the pending federal action, and there is considerable risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues in deposing respondents, petitioner’s motion to compel respondents to comply with the deposition subpoenas should have been denied (see Corcoran v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 151 AD2d 443 [1989]). Indeed, work-product issues are pending in connection with a subpoena duces tecum (see 46 AD3d 323 [2007]).

We perceive no basis to disturb the denial of respondents’ motion for sanctions under Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 438, 854 N.Y.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bombardier-capital-inc-v-schoengold-sporn-laitman-lometti-pc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack