From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orr v. Yun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2978.

June 8, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to quash plaintiff's nonparty subpoenas, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Richard Paul Stone, New York, for appellant.

Heller, Horowitz Feit, P.C., New York (Martin Stein of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.


The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants' motion to quash the post-note of issue subpoenas. The circumstances presented do not warrant allowing plaintiff to conduct additional discovery over three months after the filing of the note of issue ( 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Plaintiffs requests for documents and for depositions of defendants' lawyers and accountants could have been made before the note of issue was filed ( see Med Part v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260).


Summaries of

Orr v. Yun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Orr v. Yun

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH ORR, Appellant, v. DANIEL YUN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4839
901 N.Y.S.2d 835

Citing Cases

Soto-Maroquin v. Mellett

Moreover, if defendants did not actually receive the films until September 2009, defendants fail to explain…

Paradigm Credit Corp. v. Pine Vil. Group.

Lee and Pine Village cannot forestall summary judgment due to outstanding disclosure because they did not…