Cumia v. Cumia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cumia v. Cumia

287 A.D.2d 272, 730 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9286

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 272 (Cumia v. Cumia) 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

Cumia v. Cumia, 287 A.D.2d 272, 730 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 18, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of nonparty petitioner Infinity Broadcasting Corporation to quash subpoenas to four Infinity employees, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without prejudice to further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Defendant’s apparent signing of a new contract since this appeal was filed negates the need for Infinity executives to testify concerning what salary defendant might command based on comparisons to others similarly situated in his field, absent a showing of collusion between Infinity and defendant. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 18, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of nonparty petitioner Infinity Broadcasting Corporation to quash subpoenas to four Infinity employees, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without prejudice to further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Defendant’s apparent signing of a new contract since this appeal was filed negates the need for Infinity executives to testify concerning what salary defendant might command based on comparisons to others similarly situated in his field, absent a showing of collusion between Infinity and defendant. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 272, 730 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumia-v-cumia-nyappdiv-2001.