Chu v. Green Point Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chu v. Green Point Savings Bank

228 A.D.2d 635, 646 N.Y.2d 28, 646 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7431

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chu v. Green Point Savings Bank. Read the opinion of the Court — 216 A.D.2d 348 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published

Opinion

We agree with the plaintiff’s contention that the material sought in the second paragraph of the defendants’ subpoena, to wit: "all documents relating to Citibank’s electronic payment services, including, but not limited to, material distributed to its customers”, is overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity, as evidenced by the defendants’ willingness to narrow the request (see, CPLR 3120 [a]).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

We agree with the plaintiff’s contention that the material sought in the second paragraph of the defendants’ subpoena, to wit: "all documents relating to Citibank’s electronic payment services, including, but not limited to, material distributed to its customers”, is overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity, as evidenced by the defendants’ willingness to narrow the request (see, CPLR 3120 [a]).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Chu v. Green Point Savings Bank, 228 A.D.2d 635, 646 N.Y.2d 28, 646 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 635 (Chu v. Green Point Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.