Mendelovitz v. Cohen
This text of 49 A.D.3d 612 (Mendelovitz v. Cohen) 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.
Opinion
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, inter alia, quashing the subpoenas served upon the nonparties Regal Home Collections, Inc., Mayer Rispler, Nat Safern, and Harri Shan, as the discovery sought is not material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see White Bay Enters, v Newsday, Inc., 288 AD2d 211 [2001]; see also Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v First Secured Capital Corp., 28 AD3d 457, 459-460 [2006]; Golden Mark Maintenance v Alarcon, 265 AD2d 377 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
49 A.D.3d 612, 852 N.Y.2d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelovitz-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2008.