Peters v. Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peters v. Peters

118 A.D.3d 593, 987 N.Y.S.2d 168

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

DecidedJune 19, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.3d 593 (Peters v. Peters) 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

Peters v. Peters, 118 A.D.3d 593, 987 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 23, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion to quash plaintiffs nonparty subpoenas to the extent of quashing the subpoenas served on Colonial Navigation Company Inc. (Colonial) and Cardillo & Corbett, Esqs. and limiting the subpoena served on Newman & Cahn, LLI] unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied.

The amended complaint sets forth allegations of conversion with respect to the purchase of a ship known as the M/V Athena, the principal asset of nonparty Sea Trade Maritime Corporation. It is alleged in the amended complaint that Colonial was the managing agent of the Athena. According to the deposition of defendant George Christy Peters, the two law firms mentioned [594]*594above were the attorneys for Sea Trade. In light of the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that the discovery sought by way of the subject subpoenas is “material and necessary” under CPLR 3101 (a) (4) insofar as it is relevant to the prosecution of plaintiffs claims (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]). Accordingly, the motion court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

We reject defendants’ argument that the doctrine of law of the case calls for a different result. Here, defendants erroneously rely on a prior order dismissing certain claims set forth in the original complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Because the original complaint was superseded by the amended complaint, the sufficiency of the allegations in the earlier complaint is rendered academic (Thompson v Cooper, 24 AD3d 203, 205 [1st Dept 2005]). Defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs claims lack merit is equally unavailing for purposes of the instant discovery motion.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 23, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion to quash plaintiffs nonparty subpoenas to the extent of quashing the subpoenas served on Colonial Navigation Company Inc. (Colonial) and Cardillo & Corbett, Esqs. and limiting the subpoena served on Newman & Cahn, LLI] unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied.

The amended complaint sets forth allegations of conversion with respect to the purchase of a ship known as the M/V Athena, the principal asset of nonparty Sea Trade Maritime Corporation. It is alleged in the amended complaint that Colonial was the managing agent of the Athena. According to the deposition of defendant George Christy Peters, the two law firms mentioned [594]*594above were the attorneys for Sea Trade. In light of the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that the discovery sought by way of the subject subpoenas is “material and necessary” under CPLR 3101 (a) (4) insofar as it is relevant to the prosecution of plaintiffs claims (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]). Accordingly, the motion court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

We reject defendants’ argument that the doctrine of law of the case calls for a different result. Here, defendants erroneously rely on a prior order dismissing certain claims set forth in the original complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Because the original complaint was superseded by the amended complaint, the sufficiency of the allegations in the earlier complaint is rendered academic (Thompson v Cooper, 24 AD3d 203, 205 [1st Dept 2005]). Defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs claims lack merit is equally unavailing for purposes of the instant discovery motion.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 593, 987 N.Y.S.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-peters-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack