Lanzello v. Lakritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lanzello v. Lakritz

287 A.D.2d 601, 731 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11921

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 601 (Lanzello v. Lakritz) 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

Lanzello v. Lakritz, 287 A.D.2d 601, 731 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated March 30, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs motion for a protective order quashing a nonparty subpoena served upon the treating physician of the plaintiffs decedent.

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

A party seeking discovery from a nonparty witness must show special circumstances (see, Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). The existence of such special circumstances is not established merely upon a showing that the information sought is relevant. Rather, special circumstances are shown by establishing that the information sought cannot be obtained from other sources (see, Murphy v Macarthur Holding B., 269 AD2d 507; Patterson v St. Francis Ctr., 249 AD2d 457; Anderson v Kamalian, 231 AD2d 659; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., supra). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants did not show special circumstances and therefore properly granted the plaintiffs motion for a protective order quashing the subpoena served on the treating physician of the plaintiffs decedent. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated March 30, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs motion for a protective order quashing a nonparty subpoena served upon the treating physician of the plaintiffs decedent.

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

A party seeking discovery from a nonparty witness must show special circumstances (see, Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). The existence of such special circumstances is not established merely upon a showing that the information sought is relevant. Rather, special circumstances are shown by establishing that the information sought cannot be obtained from other sources (see, Murphy v Macarthur Holding B., 269 AD2d 507; Patterson v St. Francis Ctr., 249 AD2d 457; Anderson v Kamalian, 231 AD2d 659; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., supra). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants did not show special circumstances and therefore properly granted the plaintiffs motion for a protective order quashing the subpoena served on the treating physician of the plaintiffs decedent. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 601, 731 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanzello-v-lakritz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack