Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp.

305 A.D.2d 215, 758 N.Y.S.2d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5357

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

DecidedMay 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 215 (Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp.) 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

Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp., 305 A.D.2d 215, 758 N.Y.S.2d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 10, 2002, which granted defendant Crescent Contracting Corp.’s motion to quash four subpoenas issued by counsel for defendant Perini Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial subpoenas issued by counsel for Perini were properly quashed as overbroad (see Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d 383 [1983]) and improper discovery devices (see Mestel & Co. v Smythe Masterson & Judd, 215 AD2d 329 [216]*216[1995]). Under the particular circumstances presented, Crescent’s motion to quash was timely (see CPLR 2304). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 10, 2002, which granted defendant Crescent Contracting Corp.’s motion to quash four subpoenas issued by counsel for defendant Perini Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial subpoenas issued by counsel for Perini were properly quashed as overbroad (see Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d 383 [1983]) and improper discovery devices (see Mestel & Co. v Smythe Masterson & Judd, 215 AD2d 329 [216]*216[1995]). Under the particular circumstances presented, Crescent’s motion to quash was timely (see CPLR 2304). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 215, 758 N.Y.S.2d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-crescent-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack