Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Ass'n

126 A.D.2d 815, 510 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41956

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 8, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered April 7, 1986 in Greene County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order.

Plaintiff is suing defendant to recover money damages for cancellation of a contract for removal of horse manure from the Saratoga Race Track. Defendant counterclaimed alleging that plaintiff had breached the contract and for property damage caused to defendant’s property by plaintiff.

The sole issue here is whether the protective order vacating a notice for examination before trial of a nonparty witness and vacating a subpoena duces tecum served on plaintiffs accountant was properly issued. There must be an affirmance. Defendant has failed to comply with CPLR 3101 (a) (4) and 3120. Defendant’s demand is too broad. Relevancy of the demand to the claims of the parties has not been established.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered April 7, 1986 in Greene County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order.

Plaintiff is suing defendant to recover money damages for cancellation of a contract for removal of horse manure from the Saratoga Race Track. Defendant counterclaimed alleging that plaintiff had breached the contract and for property damage caused to defendant’s property by plaintiff.

The sole issue here is whether the protective order vacating a notice for examination before trial of a nonparty witness and vacating a subpoena duces tecum served on plaintiffs accountant was properly issued. There must be an affirmance. Defendant has failed to comply with CPLR 3101 (a) (4) and 3120. Defendant’s demand is too broad. Relevancy of the demand to the claims of the parties has not been established.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Ass'n, 126 A.D.2d 815, 510 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

126 A.D.2d 815 (Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related