Rinaolo v. McMillin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rinaolo v. McMillin

246 A.D.2d 307, 666 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 307 (Rinaolo v. McMillin) 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

Rinaolo v. McMillin, 246 A.D.2d 307, 666 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to reargue, and denied their motion to renew, a prior order, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1996, denying without prejudice their motion to compel disclosure of plaintiffs’ tax returns, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of October 29, 1996 is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of April 7, 1997.

Defendants so far fail to explain why the bank, credit and mortgage statements that have been produced do not adequately demonstrate the fact they want to prove—plaintiffs’ lack of financial ability to accept their business partners’ offer. Further, as the IAS Court aptly noted, the tax returns may not be decisive of that issue, such that defendants fail to make the requisite strong showing of necessity for the tax returns. We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that their motion to renew should have been granted, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to reargue, and denied their motion to renew, a prior order, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1996, denying without prejudice their motion to compel disclosure of plaintiffs’ tax returns, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of October 29, 1996 is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of April 7, 1997.

Defendants so far fail to explain why the bank, credit and mortgage statements that have been produced do not adequately demonstrate the fact they want to prove—plaintiffs’ lack of financial ability to accept their business partners’ offer. Further, as the IAS Court aptly noted, the tax returns may not be decisive of that issue, such that defendants fail to make the requisite strong showing of necessity for the tax returns. We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that their motion to renew should have been granted, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 307, 666 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinaolo-v-mcmillin-nyappdiv-1998.