Zinger v. Service Center of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zinger v. Service Center of New York, Inc.

94 A.D.3d 482, 941 N.Y.S.2d 496

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

DecidedApril 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 482 (Zinger v. Service Center of New York, 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

Zinger v. Service Center of New York, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 482, 941 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered August 5, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, in this action seeking recovery for services rendered, denied plaintiffs motion to compel production of responses to certain interrogatories and document requests, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of compelling disclosure of document requests numbered 1 and 2 and interrogatories numbered 1 and 2, limited to the period of September 30, 2003 to March 21, 2006, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff’s requests for vehicular insurance policies and governmental filings were irrelevant to his alter-ego claim against the individually named defendant. However, the requests concerning the corporate defendant’s bank accounts and credit cards seek documents and information of the type [483]*483that would yield evidence of misuse of the corporate form (see e.g. Horizon Inc. v Wolkowicki, 55 AD3d 337 [2008]). Accordingly, we find that such records and information, to the extent limited to the period of plaintiffs employment plus one year, are “material and necessary” for the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered August 5, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, in this action seeking recovery for services rendered, denied plaintiffs motion to compel production of responses to certain interrogatories and document requests, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of compelling disclosure of document requests numbered 1 and 2 and interrogatories numbered 1 and 2, limited to the period of September 30, 2003 to March 21, 2006, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff’s requests for vehicular insurance policies and governmental filings were irrelevant to his alter-ego claim against the individually named defendant. However, the requests concerning the corporate defendant’s bank accounts and credit cards seek documents and information of the type [483]*483that would yield evidence of misuse of the corporate form (see e.g. Horizon Inc. v Wolkowicki, 55 AD3d 337 [2008]). Accordingly, we find that such records and information, to the extent limited to the period of plaintiffs employment plus one year, are “material and necessary” for the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 482, 941 N.Y.S.2d 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinger-v-service-center-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack