Opinion
Index No. 151342-2021 Mot. Seq. No. 001
05-16-2022
Leena Charlton v. 92 Pinehurst Avenue LLC
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: HON. LYNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C.
HON. LYNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C.
The following papers were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. - Affidavits - Exhibits ECFS DOC No(s). Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ECFS DOC No(s). Replying Affidavits ECFS DOC No(s).
This is a motion to quash a subpoena served by plaintiff upon nonparty New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR") seeking status and rent roll reports for the years 2006-2022 for the building at 92 Pinehurst Avenue, New York, New York, which is owned by the defendant. Defendant further seeks a protective order. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
"[A] motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted only where the materials sought are utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry" (Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 104, 112 [1st Dept 2006]). The party seeking to quash a subpoena must "establish[] that the requested documents and records are utterly irrelevant" or that the subpoenas subject the witness to harassment (Myerson v. LentiniBros. Moving & Storage Co., Inc., 33 N.Y.2d 250 [1973]).
Plaintiff's counsel has detailed the efforts made to obtain the records sought vis-a-vis the underlying subpoena, which was so ordered by the court on March 1, 2022. Assuming arguendo that defendant has even met its prima facie burden on this motion, plaintiff has established that the records sought are relevant and material to facts at issue, since the records may enable plaintiff to prove a fraudulent scheme by defendant to evade the rent stabilization law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is denied in its entirety.
Any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered and is hereby expressly rejected and this constitutes the decision and order of the court.