Singh v. G & A Mounting & Die Cutting, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 516, 739 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2951
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 516 (Singh v. G & A Mounting & Die Cutting, Inc.) 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
Singh v. G & A Mounting & Die Cutting, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 516, 739 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant U.S. Electrical Motors, a Division of Emerson Electric Co., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 5, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike a notice to admit dated January 16, 2001, and to quash a subpoena served on their attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the notice to admit dated January 16, 2001, since several of the demands contained therein sought “admissions as to material and ultimate issues” (Kimmel v Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, 214 AD2d 453; see, Berg v Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 AD2d 760). Furthermore, a notice to admit is not to be used “as a substitute for existing discovery devices” (Jonas v Liberty Lines Tr., 142 AD2d 554, 555), or as “a subterfuge for obtaining further discovery” (Hodes v City of New York, 165 AD2d 168, 171).

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to quash the subpoena served on their attorney, since the appellant sought to compel that attorney to testify at trial about confidential matters (see, CPLR 4503 [a]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fusion Funding v. All Pro Preparation, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 31133(U) (New York Supreme Court, Ontario County, 2025)
Pasek v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc.
2021 NY Slip Op 03773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Jet One Group, Inc. v. Halcyon Jet Holdings, Inc.
111 A.D.3d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 516, 739 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singh-v-g-a-mounting-die-cutting-inc-nyappdiv-2002.