Picart v. New York City Transit Authority

226 A.D.2d 165, 640 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered September 15,1994, which denied plaintiff’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action in which plaintiff has placed her lost earnings [166] in issue, and under circumstances where plaintiff has consistently failed to respond adequately to discovery as well as to a pretrial conference order, the subpoena seeking plaintiff’s income tax records for specified periods and additional documentation of her earnings should be enforced. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Picart v. New York City Transit Authority, 226 A.D.2d 165, 640 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

226 A.D.2d 165 (Picart v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buttar v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 01355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
ZIOLKOWSKI, KENNETH v. HAN-TEK, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Ziolkowski v. Han-Tek, Inc.
126 A.D.3d 1431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)