Desario v. SL Green Management LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Desario v. SL Green Management LLC

118 A.D.3d 520, 987 N.Y.S.2d 151

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

DecidedJune 12, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 520 (Desario v. SL Green Management LLC) 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

Desario v. SL Green Management LLC, 118 A.D.3d 520, 987 N.Y.S.2d 151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 23, 2013, which granted plaintiffs motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon his former employers and for a protective order precluding defendants from using any of the information obtained by the subpoenas at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in quashing defendants’ post note of issue trial subpoenas seeking plaintiff’s entire employment files from three employers. Defendants failed to demonstrate “unusual or unanticipated” circumstances or “substantial prejudice” sufficient to warrant post-note of issue discovery (see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [1st Dept 2005]; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]).

Concur— Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 23, 2013, which granted plaintiffs motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon his former employers and for a protective order precluding defendants from using any of the information obtained by the subpoenas at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in quashing defendants’ post note of issue trial subpoenas seeking plaintiff’s entire employment files from three employers. Defendants failed to demonstrate “unusual or unanticipated” circumstances or “substantial prejudice” sufficient to warrant post-note of issue discovery (see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [1st Dept 2005]; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]).

Concur— Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 520, 987 N.Y.S.2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desario-v-sl-green-management-llc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack