From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Degliuomini v. Degliuomini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 2003
308 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-01916

Submitted September 10, 2003.

September 22, 2003.

In an action for partition of real property and an accounting, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated February 5, 2003, as denied that branch of her motion which was to quash a subpoena served upon the nonparty Gregg M. Sidoti.

Hass Gottlieb, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Lawrence M. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellant.

Israel Goldberg, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was to quash the subpoena served upon the nonparty Gregg M. Sidoti is granted.

The plaintiff served a subpoena on the defendant's former attorney, the nonparty Gregg M. Sidoti, seeking, inter alia, information and documents concerning two of Sidoti's former clients, Inter Metal Fabricators, Inc., and Amboy Steel, Inc. Insofar as the subpoena sought the production of "any and all documents information [sic]" it was improper since it did not specify the documents sought with "reasonable particularity" (CPLR 3120[b]; see Matter of Ehmer, 272 A.D.2d 540; Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429; Myrie v. Shelley, 237 A.D.2d 337; Fascaldi v. Fascaldi, 209 A.D.2d 578). Moreover, to the extent that the information sought by the plaintiff from Sidoti was not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege ( see CPLR 4503[a]; Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62; Matter of Ehmer, supra; Miranda v. Miranda, 184 A.D.2d 286), the plaintiff failed to establish that the information was otherwise unobtainable ( see Golden Mark Maintenance v. Alarcon, 265 A.D.2d 377; Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 A.D.2d 614). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to quash the plaintiff's subpoena served upon Sidoti should have been granted.

SANTUCCI, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Degliuomini v. Degliuomini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 2003
308 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Degliuomini v. Degliuomini

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTINE DEGLIUOMINI, respondent, v. BEATRICE DEGLIUOMINI, appellant

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 846

Citing Cases

Portillo v. Carlson

It is axiomatic that there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution…

Moran v. Carbone

"Moreover, it was not established that there were special circumstances warranting disclosure from a nonparty…