Prudential Securities Inc. v. Samansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prudential Securities Inc. v. Samansky

281 A.D.2d 483, 721 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2343

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 483 (Prudential Securities Inc. v. Samansky) 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

Prudential Securities Inc. v. Samansky, 281 A.D.2d 483, 721 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2307 for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered May 25, 2000, which denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed him to produce certain documents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena served in this case since the documents sought therein are relevant and material to issues in a pending arbitration proceeding (see, Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044; Valdez v Sharaby, 258 AD2d 458; Pernice v Devora, 238 [484]*484AD2d 558). The production of documents pursuant to the subpoena does not violate the nondisclosure provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code § 22-4.3, since those provisions concern disclosure to the public at large (see, People v Doe, 84 AD2d 182, 193), which is not the situation in this case.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2307 for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered May 25, 2000, which denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed him to produce certain documents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena served in this case since the documents sought therein are relevant and material to issues in a pending arbitration proceeding (see, Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044; Valdez v Sharaby, 258 AD2d 458; Pernice v Devora, 238 [484]*484AD2d 558). The production of documents pursuant to the subpoena does not violate the nondisclosure provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code § 22-4.3, since those provisions concern disclosure to the public at large (see, People v Doe, 84 AD2d 182, 193), which is not the situation in this case.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 483, 721 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-securities-inc-v-samansky-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack