In re Estate of Fiore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Fiore

204 A.D.2d 637, 614 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedMay 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 637 (In re Estate of Fiore) 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

In re Estate of Fiore, 204 A.D.2d 637, 614 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to revoke the letters of administration issued to Susan Fiore Vales, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated October 7, 1992, which denied the nonparty appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking his deposition and the production of documents alleged to be in his possession.

[638]*638Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The information sought from the nonparty appellant is primarily related to a non-legal business transaction and does not implicate confidential communications between an attorney and a client (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371; Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 73 NY2d 588, 593; People v Belge, 59 AD2d 307, 309). In any event, should the attorney-client privilege be implicated at the deposition, the appellant may make an objection at that time (see, 305-7 W. 128th St. Corp. v Gold, 178 AD2d 251; Verschell v Pike, 65 AD2d 622).

The Surrogate has broad discretion in revoking letters of administration based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, SCPA 711, 713; Stolz v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 7 NY2d 269, 270). Therefore, it cannot be said that the information sought by the subpoena is irrelevant. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to revoke the letters of administration issued to Susan Fiore Vales, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated October 7, 1992, which denied the nonparty appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking his deposition and the production of documents alleged to be in his possession.

[638]*638Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The information sought from the nonparty appellant is primarily related to a non-legal business transaction and does not implicate confidential communications between an attorney and a client (see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371; Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 73 NY2d 588, 593; People v Belge, 59 AD2d 307, 309). In any event, should the attorney-client privilege be implicated at the deposition, the appellant may make an objection at that time (see, 305-7 W. 128th St. Corp. v Gold, 178 AD2d 251; Verschell v Pike, 65 AD2d 622).

The Surrogate has broad discretion in revoking letters of administration based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, SCPA 711, 713; Stolz v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 7 NY2d 269, 270). Therefore, it cannot be said that the information sought by the subpoena is irrelevant. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 637, 614 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-fiore-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack