Cadle Co. v. Court Living Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadle Co. v. Court Living Corp.

34 A.D.3d 254, 823 N.Y.S.2d 401

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 254 (Cadle Co. v. Court Living Corp.) 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

Cadle Co. v. Court Living Corp., 34 A.D.3d 254, 823 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 4, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to enforce subpoenas pursuant to CFLR 5223 and denied appellants’ cross motions to quash said subpoenas, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

It is undisputed that appellant Greco has appeared for deposition and provided the information sought from her as well as regarding her co-appellant, rendering the appeal moot (see Matter of McMahon v Landon, 154 AD2d 745 [1989]). Appellants have failed adequately to explain how the circumstances fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 4, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to enforce subpoenas pursuant to CFLR 5223 and denied appellants’ cross motions to quash said subpoenas, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

It is undisputed that appellant Greco has appeared for deposition and provided the information sought from her as well as regarding her co-appellant, rendering the appeal moot (see Matter of McMahon v Landon, 154 AD2d 745 [1989]). Appellants have failed adequately to explain how the circumstances fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 254, 823 N.Y.S.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadle-co-v-court-living-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack