People v. John Trotter, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. John Trotter, Ltd.

249 A.D.2d 14, 671 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514

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

DecidedApril 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 14 (People v. John Trotter, Ltd.) 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

People v. John Trotter, Ltd., 249 A.D.2d 14, 671 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 18, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected defendants-appellants’ claim that a prior decision in a special proceeding to quash an investigatory subpoena had collateral estoppel effect on plaintiffs efforts to obtain an order compelling discovery in this plenary action, since there was no “ ‘identity of * * * issues in the present litigation and the prior determination’ ” (Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659, 667). Since the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable and since defendant-appellant does not otherwise challenge the “material [ity] and necessity]” (CPLR 3101 [a]) of the requested documents, the IAS Court properly granted, without condition, plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, 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 (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 18, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected defendants-appellants’ claim that a prior decision in a special proceeding to quash an investigatory subpoena had collateral estoppel effect on plaintiffs efforts to obtain an order compelling discovery in this plenary action, since there was no “ ‘identity of * * * issues in the present litigation and the prior determination’ ” (Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659, 667). Since the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable and since defendant-appellant does not otherwise challenge the “material [ity] and necessity]” (CPLR 3101 [a]) of the requested documents, the IAS Court properly granted, without condition, plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 14, 671 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-john-trotter-ltd-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack