Cespedes v. Kraja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cespedes v. Kraja

70 A.D.3d 622, 892 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 622 (Cespedes v. Kraja) 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

Cespedes v. Kraja, 70 A.D.3d 622, 892 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mark Limousine, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 3, 2009, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant,to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel a nonparty, Janet Barahona, to comply with its subpoena.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel the nonparty Janet Barahona to comply with its subpoena is granted.

Under the circumstances presented, in support of its unopposed motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, the appellant sufficiently articulated the need for the discovery sought (see Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111 [2006]; cf. Matter of Stevens Imports v Lack, 52 AD2d 928 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 939 [1977]), and that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources (see Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 520, 521-522 [2002]; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482, 483 [2001]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mark Limousine, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 3, 2009, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant,to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel a nonparty, Janet Barahona, to comply with its subpoena.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel the nonparty Janet Barahona to comply with its subpoena is granted.

Under the circumstances presented, in support of its unopposed motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, the appellant sufficiently articulated the need for the discovery sought (see Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111 [2006]; cf. Matter of Stevens Imports v Lack, 52 AD2d 928 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 939 [1977]), and that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources (see Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 520, 521-522 [2002]; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482, 483 [2001]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 622, 892 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cespedes-v-kraja-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack