In re Validation Review Associates, Inc.

237 A.D.2d 614, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3079
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 614 (In re Validation Review Associates, Inc.) 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 Validation Review Associates, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 614, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 to dissolve a corporation, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated February 22, 1996, as granted the motion of David Schimel to quash judicial subpoenas and to vacate related notices of deposition served upon nonparty witnesses Elizabeth DeEspina and Island Peer Review Organization.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[615]*615The court properly concluded that the subpoenas served upon, inter alia, nonparty witnesses Elizabeth DeEspina and Island Peer Review Organization (hereinafter IPRO) were facially invalid and unenforceable because they did not contain, or were not accompanied by, a notice setting forth the reason why disclosure was sought (see, Knitwork Prods. Corp. v Helfat, 234 AD2d 345; De Stafano v MT Health Clubs, 220 AD2d 331; Rickicki v Borden Chem., 195 AD2d 986; Kaufman v Red Ground Corp., 170 AD2d 484). Although the petitioner represents that substitute subpoenas containing the required notice were served, the record on appeal does not contain the substitute subpoenas served upon DeEspina or IPRO. Therefore, we cannot determine whether these substitute subpoenas did, in fact, contain the required notice and, if so, whether such notice was sufficient.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting David Schimel’s motion to quash these subpoenas (City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358). The petitioner, who seeks disclosure from nonparty witnesses, failed to establish "special circumstances” by demonstrating that the information sought to be discovered cannot be obtained from other sources (see, Schwarz v Schwarz, 227 AD2d 611; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Conte v. County of Nassau
87 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kooper v. Kooper
74 A.D.3d 6 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Butt v. New York Medical College
7 A.D.3d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Estate of Ehmer
272 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Vogel v. Benwil Industries, Inc.
267 A.D.2d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc.
249 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Newman v. Lotwin
247 A.D.2d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 A.D.2d 614, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-validation-review-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1997.