Liberty Co. v. Rogene Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liberty Co. v. Rogene Industries, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 382, 707 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5073

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 382 (Liberty Co. v. Rogene Industries, 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

Liberty Co. v. Rogene Industries, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 382, 707 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 25, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant Robert E. Boyle to quash a subpoena duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum in its entirety, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion which was to quash item b of the subpoena duces tecum and items h and i as they relate to Northern Metropolitan Physicians Network and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.

CPLR 5240 grants the court broad discretionary power to control and regulate proceedings to enforce a money judgment to prevent “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice” (Paz v Long Is. R. R., 241 AD2d 486, 487). The Supreme Court, however, was not warranted in granting, in its entirety, the defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. The instant subpoena duces tecum was a proper vehicle “[to] compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment” (CPLR 5223; see also, Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., 158 AD2d 641, 642; Young v Torelli, 135 AD2d 813, 815). The plaintiff was not entitled to [383]*383the material requested by item b or the material under items h and i as they related to Northern Metropolitan Physicians Network. The defendant, however, failed to meet his burden of establishing that the remaining material requested was “ ‘utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry’ ” (Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., supra, at 642, quoting Matter of Dairymen’s League Coop. Assn, v Murtagh, 274 App Div 591, 595). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 25, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant Robert E. Boyle to quash a subpoena duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum in its entirety, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion which was to quash item b of the subpoena duces tecum and items h and i as they relate to Northern Metropolitan Physicians Network and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.

CPLR 5240 grants the court broad discretionary power to control and regulate proceedings to enforce a money judgment to prevent “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice” (Paz v Long Is. R. R., 241 AD2d 486, 487). The Supreme Court, however, was not warranted in granting, in its entirety, the defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. The instant subpoena duces tecum was a proper vehicle “[to] compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment” (CPLR 5223; see also, Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., 158 AD2d 641, 642; Young v Torelli, 135 AD2d 813, 815). The plaintiff was not entitled to [383]*383the material requested by item b or the material under items h and i as they related to Northern Metropolitan Physicians Network. The defendant, however, failed to meet his burden of establishing that the remaining material requested was “ ‘utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry’ ” (Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., supra, at 642, quoting Matter of Dairymen’s League Coop. Assn, v Murtagh, 274 App Div 591, 595). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 382, 707 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-co-v-rogene-industries-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack