Kaye v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaye v. Kaye

127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43034

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 566 (Kaye v. Kaye) 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

Kaye v. Kaye, 127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated January 21, 1986, which granted the defendant husband’s motion for a protective order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and a notice to take a deposition of a nonparty wdtness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3103; Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031). We note that the plaintiff has already been afforded extensive discovery pursuant to this court’s prior directive (see, Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated January 21, 1986, which granted the defendant husband’s motion for a protective order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and a notice to take a deposition of a nonparty wdtness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3103; Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031). We note that the plaintiff has already been afforded extensive discovery pursuant to this court’s prior directive (see, Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaye-v-kaye-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack