From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Byoung Sool Kim v. Cho Ho Bae

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1993
198 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 1, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to quash, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have established that they possess a good faith basis for seeking to depose the defendants' attorney, and that the information sought is both relevant and necessary (see, Frybergh v Kouffman, 119 A.D.2d 541; see also, SPA Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 155 A.D.2d 839; McNulty v McNulty, 81 A.D.2d 581; Planned Indus. Ctrs. v Eric Bldrs., 51 A.D.2d 586; Glen 4912 Corp. v Strauss, 44 A.D.2d 582). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Byoung Sool Kim v. Cho Ho Bae

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1993
198 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Byoung Sool Kim v. Cho Ho Bae

Case Details

Full title:BYOUNG SOOL KIM et al., Respondents, v. CHO HO BAE et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v. Gulf Oil, L.P.

This "implicates not only the ethics of the profession but also the substantive rights of the litigants" ( S…