TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 6818, 143 A.D.3d 885, 39 N.Y.S.3d 798

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2016

Docket2015-00260

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6818 (TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC) 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

TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 6818, 143 A.D.3d 885, 39 N.Y.S.3d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered January 6, 2015, which denied its motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon nonparties and for a protective order against further discovery from those nonparties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Lawrence), to quash subpoenas served upon nonparties and for a protective order against further discovery from those nonparties. In a prior decision and order dated May 7, 2014, this Court affirmed an order of the Supreme Court entered September 13, 2012, which denied, in effect, as premature, that branch of Lawrence’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action for foreclosure, finding that the defendant Club Central, LLC, raised issues warranting further discovery (see TD Bank, N.A. v 126 Spruce St., LLC, 117 AD3d 716, 717 [2014]). Contrary to Lawrence’s contention, the subpoenas at issue satisfied the notice requirement of CPLR 3101 (a) (4), as they contained the circumstances and reasons the disclosure *886 was sought, providing the nonparties with ample information to challenge the subpoenas duces tecum (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014]). Lawrence also failed to make the requisite factual showing pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order (see Hartheimer v Clipper, 288 AD2d 263 [2001]). The subpoenas were not overbroad, as they set forth the documents sought by category with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [2]), and Lawrence failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the documents sought were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege (see Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 67-69 [1980]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered January 6, 2015, which denied its motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon nonparties and for a protective order against further discovery from those nonparties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Lawrence), to quash subpoenas served upon nonparties and for a protective order against further discovery from those nonparties. In a prior decision and order dated May 7, 2014, this Court affirmed an order of the Supreme Court entered September 13, 2012, which denied, in effect, as premature, that branch of Lawrence’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action for foreclosure, finding that the defendant Club Central, LLC, raised issues warranting further discovery (see TD Bank, N.A. v 126 Spruce St., LLC, 117 AD3d 716, 717 [2014]). Contrary to Lawrence’s contention, the subpoenas at issue satisfied the notice requirement of CPLR 3101 (a) (4), as they contained the circumstances and reasons the disclosure *886 was sought, providing the nonparties with ample information to challenge the subpoenas duces tecum (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014]). Lawrence also failed to make the requisite factual showing pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order (see Hartheimer v Clipper, 288 AD2d 263 [2001]). The subpoenas were not overbroad, as they set forth the documents sought by category with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [2]), and Lawrence failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the documents sought were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege (see Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 67-69 [1980]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6818, 143 A.D.3d 885, 39 N.Y.S.3d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/td-bank-na-v-126-spruce-street-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack