Lazzaro v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazzaro v. County of Nassau

240 A.D.2d 546, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 546 (Lazzaro v. County of Nassau) 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

Lazzaro v. County of Nassau, 240 A.D.2d 546, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated June 19, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum which was served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the subpoena duces tecum which the defendants served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro, was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 438).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated June 19, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum which was served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the subpoena duces tecum which the defendants served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro, was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 438).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 546, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazzaro-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack