Picart v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedApril 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 165 (Picart v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

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).

Pincite

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]*166in 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

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]*166in 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 165, 640 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picart-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack