From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cespedes v. Kraja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2010
70 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-02995.

February 2, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mark Limousine, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 3, 2009, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel a nonparty, Janet Barahona, to comply with its subpoena.

Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeanne Boyle of counsel), for appellant.

Before: Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel the nonparty Janet Barahona to comply with its subpoena is granted.

Under the circumstances presented, in support of its unopposed motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, the appellant sufficiently articulated the need for the discovery sought ( see Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111; cf. Matter of Stevens Imports v Lack, 52 AD2d 928, affd 41 NY2d 939), and that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources ( see Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 520, 521-522; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482, 483).


Summaries of

Cespedes v. Kraja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2010
70 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Cespedes v. Kraja

Case Details

Full title:JASMINE CESPEDES, Plaintiff, v. EDMIR KRAJA, Defendant, MARK LIMOUSINE…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 796
892 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

Kooper v. Kooper

ed the "special circumstances" rubric ( Tannenbaum v City of New York, 30 AD3d 357, 358), and both premising…

Tuebner v. Cardinal Health 414, Inc.

"10. Subsequent to Dioguardi, many of our cases involving nonparty discovery continued to hold that "special…