Rogers v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. Rogers

149 A.D.2d 498, 540 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4865

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

DecidedApril 10, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 498 (Rogers v. Rogers) 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

Rogers v. Rogers, 149 A.D.2d 498, 540 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered January 30, 1987, which denied his motion for sanctions against the plaintiff under CPLR 3126 on the ground the plaintiff induced her mother to disobey a judicial subpoena duces tecum with respect to certain information relevant to the issue of maintenance and support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that there was an insufficient showing that the plaintiff wife’s mother was an agent of or otherwise under the control of the plaintiff. Absent such a showing, the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff for the failure of her mother to obey a subpoena duces tecum is not warranted (see, CPLR 3126). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered January 30, 1987, which denied his motion for sanctions against the plaintiff under CPLR 3126 on the ground the plaintiff induced her mother to disobey a judicial subpoena duces tecum with respect to certain information relevant to the issue of maintenance and support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that there was an insufficient showing that the plaintiff wife’s mother was an agent of or otherwise under the control of the plaintiff. Absent such a showing, the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff for the failure of her mother to obey a subpoena duces tecum is not warranted (see, CPLR 3126). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 498, 540 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-rogers-nyappdiv-1989.