D'Chiutiis-Lattuga v. Lattuga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Chiutiis-Lattuga v. Lattuga

40 A.D.3d 800, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474

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

DecidedMay 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 800 (D'Chiutiis-Lattuga v. Lattuga) 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

D'Chiutiis-Lattuga v. Lattuga, 40 A.D.3d 800, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce [801]*801and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), dated June 7, 2006, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a protective order quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto granting leave to the defendant, if he be so advised, to serve appropriate subpoenas following the completion of discovery and the evaluation of the parties’ business interests by the court-appointed neutral expert; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see D’Chiutiis-Lattuga v Lattuga, 40 AD3d 800 [2007] [decided herewith]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Carni, JJ, concur.

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

In an action for a divorce [801]*801and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), dated June 7, 2006, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a protective order quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto granting leave to the defendant, if he be so advised, to serve appropriate subpoenas following the completion of discovery and the evaluation of the parties’ business interests by the court-appointed neutral expert; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see D’Chiutiis-Lattuga v Lattuga, 40 AD3d 800 [2007] [decided herewith]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Carni, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 800, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dchiutiis-lattuga-v-lattuga-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack