Carmo v. Verizon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carmo v. Verizon

28 A.D.3d 508, 812 N.Y.S.2d 648

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

DecidedApril 11, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 508 (Carmo v. Verizon) 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

Carmo v. Verizon, 28 A.D.3d 508, 812 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for failure to comply with a subpoena, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered May 17, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, despite being served with a subpoena duces tecum, refused to appear and provide information on his behalf in a criminal action then pending against him in the State of New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that by reason of the defendant’s failure to comply with the subpoena, he was unable to successfully defend himself against the criminal charges, and sustained damages.

The defendant established its prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the damages claimed by the plaintiff were entirely speculative (see Shaw v Brisman, 179 AD2d 459 [1992]). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent evidence tending to establish a factual issue as to whether the damages claimed were causally related to the acts of the defendant (see Barkan v Barkan, 271 AD2d 466 [2000]; see also Dombrowski v County of Nassau, 230 AD2d 705 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for failure to comply with a subpoena, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered May 17, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, despite being served with a subpoena duces tecum, refused to appear and provide information on his behalf in a criminal action then pending against him in the State of New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that by reason of the defendant’s failure to comply with the subpoena, he was unable to successfully defend himself against the criminal charges, and sustained damages.

The defendant established its prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the damages claimed by the plaintiff were entirely speculative (see Shaw v Brisman, 179 AD2d 459 [1992]). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent evidence tending to establish a factual issue as to whether the damages claimed were causally related to the acts of the defendant (see Barkan v Barkan, 271 AD2d 466 [2000]; see also Dombrowski v County of Nassau, 230 AD2d 705 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 508, 812 N.Y.S.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmo-v-verizon-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack