Mendelovitz v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendelovitz v. Cohen

49 A.D.3d 612, 852 N.Y.2d 795

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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.

Mendelovitz v. Cohen, 49 A.D.3d 612, 852 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 612 (Mendelovitz v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related