DeLeonardis v. Hara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeLeonardis v. Hara

136 A.D.3d 558, 25 N.Y.S.3d 185

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2016

Docket283N 309080/10

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 558 (DeLeonardis v. Hara) 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

DeLeonardis v. Hara, 136 A.D.3d 558, 25 N.Y.S.3d 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas served upon the nonparty accounting firms, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action sounding in alter ego liability and fraudulent conveyance, the IAS Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the documents sought through plaintiff’s second notice for discovery and inspection, as well as through the nonparty subpoenas served on defendants’ accountants, were not material and necessary to proving the allegations in the complaint, and were otherwise undisco ver able (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000]; see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2009]; CPLR 3101 [a]).

The financial records and other documents sought by plaintiff relating to nonparties have no relevance to proving the allegations in the complaint. Regardless of what these documents show, they are not relevant to whether the judgment debtor Young Girl 7, Inc., or any of the other Young Girl Entities, was the corporate alter ego of defendant Hara, or whether the defendants fraudulently transferred their assets in an effort to evade the underlying judgment.

With respect to the documents bearing some relevance to the complaint’s allegations — such as financial documents sought from the named defendants — these documents have already been made available to plaintiff, or were otherwise objected to by defendants in response to plaintiff’s earlier requests.

Finally, the financial documents of nonparties sought through the nonparty accountant subpoenas are not only irrevelant, but are not subject to discovery on the basis of their “confidential and private nature” (Gordon v Grossman, 183 AD2d 669, 670 [1st Dept 1992]). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas served upon the nonparty accounting firms, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action sounding in alter ego liability and fraudulent conveyance, the IAS Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the documents sought through plaintiff’s second notice for discovery and inspection, as well as through the nonparty subpoenas served on defendants’ accountants, were not material and necessary to proving the allegations in the complaint, and were otherwise undisco ver able (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000]; see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2009]; CPLR 3101 [a]).

The financial records and other documents sought by plaintiff relating to nonparties have no relevance to proving the allegations in the complaint. Regardless of what these documents show, they are not relevant to whether the judgment debtor Young Girl 7, Inc., or any of the other Young Girl Entities, was the corporate alter ego of defendant Hara, or whether the defendants fraudulently transferred their assets in an effort to evade the underlying judgment.

With respect to the documents bearing some relevance to the complaint’s allegations — such as financial documents sought from the named defendants — these documents have already been made available to plaintiff, or were otherwise objected to by defendants in response to plaintiff’s earlier requests.

Finally, the financial documents of nonparties sought through the nonparty accountant subpoenas are not only irrevelant, but are not subject to discovery on the basis of their “confidential and private nature” (Gordon v Grossman, 183 AD2d 669, 670 [1st Dept 1992]). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 558, 25 N.Y.S.3d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleonardis-v-hara-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack