Orr v. Yun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orr v. Yun

74 A.D.3d 473, 901 N.Y.S.2d 835

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 8, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 473 (Orr v. Yun) 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.

Bluebook

Orr v. Yun, 74 A.D.3d 473, 901 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to quash plaintiff’s nonparty subpoenas, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to quash the post-note of issue subpoenas. The circumstances presented do not warrant allowing plaintiff to conduct additional discovery over three months after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Flaintiff’s requests for documents and for depositions of defendants’ lawyers and accountants could have been made before the note of issue was filed (see Med Part v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260 [2005]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to quash plaintiff’s nonparty subpoenas, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to quash the post-note of issue subpoenas. The circumstances presented do not warrant allowing plaintiff to conduct additional discovery over three months after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Flaintiff’s requests for documents and for depositions of defendants’ lawyers and accountants could have been made before the note of issue was filed (see Med Part v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260 [2005]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 473, 901 N.Y.S.2d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-yun-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack