Frey v. Itzkowitz

203 A.D.3d 601, 162 N.Y.S.3d 717, 2022 NY Slip Op 02061
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2022
DocketIndex No. 620707/18 Appeal No. 15581 Case No. 2021-04419
StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.3d 601 (Frey v. Itzkowitz) 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
Frey v. Itzkowitz, 203 A.D.3d 601, 162 N.Y.S.3d 717, 2022 NY Slip Op 02061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Frey v Itzkowitz (2022 NY Slip Op 02061)
Frey v Itzkowitz
2022 NY Slip Op 02061
Decided on March 24, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: March 24, 2022
Before: Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, González, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 620707/18 Appeal No. 15581 Case No. 2021-04419

[*1]Cindy Frey etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Steven Itzkowitz et al., Defendants-Respondents.


Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, for appellants.

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt LLP, Lake Success (Christopher Simone of counsel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2021, which, upon the parties' request for clarification of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 15, 2020, and following in camera review, granted defendants' motion to compel to the extent of directing plaintiffs to produce certain licensing agreements subject to a confidentiality order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in directing plaintiffs to produce the licensing agreements. Plaintiffs' contention that defendants can obtain all necessary information from tax returns already disclosed does not require denial of

defendants' request for discovery of other potentially relevant documents.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 24, 2022



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.3d 601, 162 N.Y.S.3d 717, 2022 NY Slip Op 02061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frey-v-itzkowitz-nyappdiv-2022.