Newman v. Lotwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Lotwin

247 A.D.2d 318, 668 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1616

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered June 18, 1997, which granted nonparty respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that special circumstances, including the unavailability of the information from other sources, warrant the nonparty disclosure (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 AD2d 614). Accordingly, it was an appropriate exercise of discretion to have quashed the subpoena (see, Mestel & Co. v Smythe Master son & Judd, 215 AD2d 329).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered June 18, 1997, which granted nonparty respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that special circumstances, including the unavailability of the information from other sources, warrant the nonparty disclosure (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 AD2d 614). Accordingly, it was an appropriate exercise of discretion to have quashed the subpoena (see, Mestel & Co. v Smythe Master son & Judd, 215 AD2d 329).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Newman v. Lotwin, 247 A.D.2d 318, 668 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 318 (Newman v. Lotwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related