New Hampshire Insurance v. Varda, Inc.

261 A.D.2d 135, 687 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4564
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1999·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 23,1998, which denied plaintiffs motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon a nonparty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion to quash was properly denied, since the information sought by defendants’ subpoena duces tecum was not “ ‘utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry* ” (Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., 158 AD2d 641, 642; Pagan v City of New York, 180 AD2d 545). We have considered plaintiffs additional arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

New Hampshire Insurance v. Varda, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 135, 687 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

261 A.D.2d 135 (New Hampshire Insurance v. Varda, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of LiGreci
51 Misc. 3d 875 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2016)
DOMINICCI, LIMARIE v. FORD, THOMAS
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Dominicci v. Ford
119 A.D.3d 1360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Velez v. Hunts Point Multi-Service Center, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)