Opinion
April 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
The motion to quash was properly denied notwithstanding that judgment debtor, an out-of-State resident, was served with the subpoena while in New York solely to attend trial in an unrelated action (DuPont v. Bronston, 46 A.D.2d 369, 372-373 [Steuer, J., dissenting]). Unlike the subpoena in DuPont, which was served on the judgment debtor while attending a Federal court proceeding, here the subpoena was served in a State court, and thus considerations of comity do not constrain careful avoidance of any possible interference with the authority and dignity of another court (supra, at 372 [majority opn]; cf., Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 225; Netograph Mfg. Co. v. Scrugham, 197 N.Y. 377, 380). To the extent DuPont can be read to hold that, apart from reasons of comity, a CPLR 5224 subpoena may not be served on a judgment debtor while voluntarily attending court in an unrelated proceeding, it is overruled. We have considered judgment debtor's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.