Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

80 A.D.3d 495, 914 N.Y.S.2d 629

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 495 (Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Finance Board) 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

Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Finance Board, 80 A.D.3d 495, 914 N.Y.S.2d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York [496]*496County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 16, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent’s motion to compel petitioner Meryl Brodsky to completely and accurately respond to an information subpoena and questionnaire (CPLR 5224), and denied said petitioner’s cross motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the underlying judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 31, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner waived her objection to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over her by failing to raise it in her opposition to respondent’s motion (see CPLR 3211 [e]; Matter of United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Kungel, 72 AD3d 517, 518 [2010]).

Petitioner has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment in connection with which the information subpoena was served.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York [496]*496County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 16, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent’s motion to compel petitioner Meryl Brodsky to completely and accurately respond to an information subpoena and questionnaire (CPLR 5224), and denied said petitioner’s cross motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the underlying judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 31, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner waived her objection to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over her by failing to raise it in her opposition to respondent’s motion (see CPLR 3211 [e]; Matter of United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Kungel, 72 AD3d 517, 518 [2010]).

Petitioner has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment in connection with which the information subpoena was served.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 495, 914 N.Y.S.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-new-york-city-campaign-finance-board-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack