Klepner v. Codata Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klepner v. Codata Corp.

162 A.D.2d 116

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

DecidedJune 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 116 (Klepner v. Codata Corp.) 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

Klepner v. Codata Corp., 162 A.D.2d 116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on or about May 18, 1989, in an action, inter alia, for breach of contract and quantum meruit, which denied defendant’s motion to compel production of documents reflecting the wages plaintiff earned subsequent to his employment with defendant, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action plaintiff seeks payment of an alleged agreed-upon salary while he was employed by defendant Codata Corporation, as its general counsel and as an assistant to its president, defendant Dorfman. It is plaintiff’s contention that Dorfman fraudulently induced him to continue to work for Codata by promising him substantial raises which were never paid. He, therefore, seeks to recover wages allegedly due him between 1978 and 1980.

During an examination before trial on August 12, 1987, request was made of the plaintiff for documents reflecting the wages he earned subsequent to his employment with Codata. On August 25, 1987, defendants renewed this request by letter to plaintiff’s attorneys. On December 14, 1987, by letter, plaintiff declined to produce the requested information.

While counsel has utilized a letter format rather than a notice to produce pursuant to CPLR 3120, it is conceded that a timely motion for a protective order (CPLR 3122) vacating defendants’ demand was not made. Generally the failure to make a timely motion for a protective order forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information to be discovered unless the notice to produce is palpably improper (Handy v Geften Realty, 129 AD2d 556; Wood v Sardi’s Rest. Corp., 47 AD2d 870).

The IAS court determined that the documents relating to plaintiff’s subsequent salary were irrelevant to the issues presented in this action. We agree. Plaintiff’s action is for earnings arising from a breach of an employment agreement with the corporate defendant. Plaintiff’s earnings after leaving defendant’s employment have no bearing on the issues presented. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith 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 (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on or about May 18, 1989, in an action, inter alia, for breach of contract and quantum meruit, which denied defendant’s motion to compel production of documents reflecting the wages plaintiff earned subsequent to his employment with defendant, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action plaintiff seeks payment of an alleged agreed-upon salary while he was employed by defendant Codata Corporation, as its general counsel and as an assistant to its president, defendant Dorfman. It is plaintiff’s contention that Dorfman fraudulently induced him to continue to work for Codata by promising him substantial raises which were never paid. He, therefore, seeks to recover wages allegedly due him between 1978 and 1980.

During an examination before trial on August 12, 1987, request was made of the plaintiff for documents reflecting the wages he earned subsequent to his employment with Codata. On August 25, 1987, defendants renewed this request by letter to plaintiff’s attorneys. On December 14, 1987, by letter, plaintiff declined to produce the requested information.

While counsel has utilized a letter format rather than a notice to produce pursuant to CPLR 3120, it is conceded that a timely motion for a protective order (CPLR 3122) vacating defendants’ demand was not made. Generally the failure to make a timely motion for a protective order forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information to be discovered unless the notice to produce is palpably improper (Handy v Geften Realty, 129 AD2d 556; Wood v Sardi’s Rest. Corp., 47 AD2d 870).

The IAS court determined that the documents relating to plaintiff’s subsequent salary were irrelevant to the issues presented in this action. We agree. Plaintiff’s action is for earnings arising from a breach of an employment agreement with the corporate defendant. Plaintiff’s earnings after leaving defendant’s employment have no bearing on the issues presented. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klepner-v-codata-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack