Dier v. Bender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dier v. Bender

297 A.D.2d 577, 747 N.Y.2d 169, 747 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8751

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 577 (Dier v. Bender) 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

Dier v. Bender, 297 A.D.2d 577, 747 N.Y.2d 169, 747 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[578]*578In addition to quashing most of the subpoena duces tecum served on appellants on the ground that most of the subpoena’s document requests were overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, seeking material well beyond the legitimate scope of petitioner-respondent’s need in defending a Maryland divorce action, the IAS court should have granted appellants a protective order limiting the scope of their deposition testimony to the issues raised in item 1 of the subpoena, so that they will be questioned only as to whether respondent’s wife received monies and/or any other property from them between January 1, 1999 to the present and, if so, to what extent (cf. Matter of Ayliffe & Cos., 166 AD2d 223, Iv denied 76 NY2d 714). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

[578]*578In addition to quashing most of the subpoena duces tecum served on appellants on the ground that most of the subpoena’s document requests were overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, seeking material well beyond the legitimate scope of petitioner-respondent’s need in defending a Maryland divorce action, the IAS court should have granted appellants a protective order limiting the scope of their deposition testimony to the issues raised in item 1 of the subpoena, so that they will be questioned only as to whether respondent’s wife received monies and/or any other property from them between January 1, 1999 to the present and, if so, to what extent (cf. Matter of Ayliffe & Cos., 166 AD2d 223, Iv denied 76 NY2d 714). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 577, 747 N.Y.2d 169, 747 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dier-v-bender-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack