Evangelista v. VLS Enterprises Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evangelista v. VLS Enterprises Corp.

274 A.D.2d 317, 711 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7581

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

DecidedJuly 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 317 (Evangelista v. VLS Enterprises Corp.) 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

Evangelista v. VLS Enterprises Corp., 274 A.D.2d 317, 711 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 29, 1999, directing compliance with a notice of discovery and inspection upon redaction of information regarding pricing of goods and services, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action alleging the fraudulent conveyance of funds from one defendant company to another to avoid repayment of promissory notes held by plaintiff, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in directing that certain tax returns and business records of both defendant companies be provided to plaintiff, since the sought documents are material and necessary to plaintiffs prosecution of his lawsuit and there was no claim that they are privileged from disclosure (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376-377; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). In directing compliance with plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection, there was no requirement for the court to inspect the sought materials in camera, or that the parties engage in motion practice (see, CPLR 3122, 3124). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin 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 (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 29, 1999, directing compliance with a notice of discovery and inspection upon redaction of information regarding pricing of goods and services, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action alleging the fraudulent conveyance of funds from one defendant company to another to avoid repayment of promissory notes held by plaintiff, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in directing that certain tax returns and business records of both defendant companies be provided to plaintiff, since the sought documents are material and necessary to plaintiffs prosecution of his lawsuit and there was no claim that they are privileged from disclosure (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376-377; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). In directing compliance with plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection, there was no requirement for the court to inspect the sought materials in camera, or that the parties engage in motion practice (see, CPLR 3122, 3124). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 317, 711 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evangelista-v-vls-enterprises-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack