Fogelson v. Barst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fogelson v. Barst

192 A.D.2d 321, 595 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 321 (Fogelson v. Barst) 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

Fogelson v. Barst, 192 A.D.2d 321, 595 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered July 1, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order striking defendants’ demand for production of plaintiff’s 1987-1990 tax returns, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court has the discretion to excuse compliance with the ten-day limit of CPLR 3122 (see, Matter of Handel v Handel, 26 NY2d 853), and there was here no abuse of that discretion. Defendants did not make the required showing that the tax returns contain necessary information that could not be obtained elsewhere (see, Gordon v Grossman, 183 AD2d [322]*322669). Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered July 1, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order striking defendants’ demand for production of plaintiff’s 1987-1990 tax returns, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court has the discretion to excuse compliance with the ten-day limit of CPLR 3122 (see, Matter of Handel v Handel, 26 NY2d 853), and there was here no abuse of that discretion. Defendants did not make the required showing that the tax returns contain necessary information that could not be obtained elsewhere (see, Gordon v Grossman, 183 AD2d [322]*322669). Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 321, 595 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogelson-v-barst-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack