From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quevedo v. Eichner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-07070.

May 2, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated June 14, 2005, which denied their motion to compel the deposition of a nonparty witness and to produce any related materials.

Rayo Fontanelli, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert C. Fontanelli and Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellants.

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey Pender, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for nonparty-respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the nonparty respondent, Act II Glass Mirror Corp., had standing to challenge the subpoena directed to its employee, which sought information obtained by the employee through his employment ( see Dellwood Foods v. Abrams, 109 Misc 2d 263, 266-267, affd 84 AD2d 692). However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel the employee, inter alia, to comply with the subpoena and to appear for a deposition. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the disclosure sought was material and necessary ( see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and that the information was otherwise unobtainable ( see Koramblyum v. Medvedovsky, 19 AD3d 651; Thorson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 305 AD2d 666; Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc., 249 AD2d 374).


Summaries of

Quevedo v. Eichner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Quevedo v. Eichner

Case Details

Full title:JAIME QUEVEDO et al., Appellants, v. LESLIE EICHNER, Defendant. ACT II…

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

Date published: May 2, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3564
813 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Strong v. Delemos

Based upon the adduced evidence, defendants have demonstrated that, in light of the claims made by plaintiff…

Snedeker v. Schiff Hardin LLP

CPLR § 3101(a) provides that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the…