From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tenants of 823 Park Ave. v. Salberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 2001
284 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 28, 2001.

Order and judgment(one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered February 7, 2001, which granted petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR Article 23 to the extent of compelling respondent Marcia Salberg to comply with an attorney subpoena to appear and give testimony at an administrative hearing before the respondent-appellant New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the counterclaim to quash the subpoena granted.

David Rozenholc, for petitioners-respondents.

Sheldon Melnitsky, for respondent-appellant.

Gary M. Rosenberg, for intervenor-respondent-appellant.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, Marlow, JJ.


While the IAS court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the tenants' petition (CPLR 2308[b]), it improperly granted the portion of the petition directing the witness, Marcia Salberg, to appear and testify at the administrative hearing. The audit was not the sine qua non of the proceeding. At issue was whether the owner could earn the required net annual return and whether the submitted economic data was reasonable and accurate. The proposed witness's testimony would not be relevant to these issues since she merely analyzed the data and has no first-hand knowledge of its accuracy. Therefore, the subpoena should be quashed.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Tenants of 823 Park Ave. v. Salberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 2001
284 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In re Tenants of 823 Park Ave. v. Salberg

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF THE CONCERNED TENANTS OF 823 PARK AVENUE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 28, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 850

Citing Cases

Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp.

Occidental's only obligation under the subpoena is to produce a person to testify who is knowledgeable of…

Retamozzo v. State

Nor is there anything in the submissions before me showing that Dodd has personal knowledge relevant to this…