Fleming v. Vassallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleming v. Vassallo

295 A.D.2d 172, 744 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6158

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

DecidedJune 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 172 (Fleming v. Vassallo) 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

Fleming v. Vassallo, 295 A.D.2d 172, 744 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 13, 2002, which, in a legal malpractice action arising out of a divorce action between plaintiff and nonparty respondent, denied respondent’s motion for a protective order against a subpoena served upon him by defendant attorneys, and, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for disclosure sanctions only to the qxtent of precluding respondent from testifying at trial or submitting affidavits on plaintiff’s behalf unless he produced certain documents by certain dates, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly gave respondent one last opportunity to comply with the subject subpoena, compliance with which had been previously directed by this Court (283 AD2d 225; CPLR 3126). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 13, 2002, which, in a legal malpractice action arising out of a divorce action between plaintiff and nonparty respondent, denied respondent’s motion for a protective order against a subpoena served upon him by defendant attorneys, and, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for disclosure sanctions only to the qxtent of precluding respondent from testifying at trial or submitting affidavits on plaintiff’s behalf unless he produced certain documents by certain dates, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly gave respondent one last opportunity to comply with the subject subpoena, compliance with which had been previously directed by this Court (283 AD2d 225; CPLR 3126). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 172, 744 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-vassallo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack