Markowitz v. Gourdine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markowitz v. Gourdine

105 A.D.2d 697, 481 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20804

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1984·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding to quash subpoenas duces tecum, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated June 17,1983, which, inter alia, granted the application.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Appellants have failed to demonstrate that many of the records demanded in the nonjudicial subpoenas herein bear a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the investigation (see Myerson v Lentini Bros. Mov. & Stor. Co., 33 NY2d 250). The subpoenas are overbroad. Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to quash subpoenas duces tecum, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated June 17,1983, which, inter alia, granted the application.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Appellants have failed to demonstrate that many of the records demanded in the nonjudicial subpoenas herein bear a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the investigation (see Myerson v Lentini Bros. Mov. & Stor. Co., 33 NY2d 250). The subpoenas are overbroad. Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Markowitz v. Gourdine, 105 A.D.2d 697, 481 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

105 A.D.2d 697 (Markowitz v. Gourdine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related