From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manair v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 2006
32 A.D.3d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-10182.

August 29, 2006.

In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 26, 2005, as granted those branches of the father's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 2308 (a) to impose a sanction on her for her failure to comply with an order dated August 17, 2005, and so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum, and awarded the father the sum of $350 plus a statutory penalty in the sum of $50.

Sneha Kapadia, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anna Maria Diamanti of counsel), for appellant.

Santoriella, DiTomaso Fort, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Rebecca Fort of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court properly granted those branches of the father's motion which were to impose a sanction on the mother for her failure to comply with an order dated August 17, 2005 and so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum. The subpoenaes duces tecum at issue were a form of compulsory process under CPLR article 23 and not a disclosure device, in that they directed the mother to bring specified documents to court for use at a hearing or trial, enabling the court to examine the items and make appropriate direction regarding their use (see CPLR 2301; People v Cortez, 149 Misc 2d 886, 888). As such, there was no requirement that the father's attorney provide an affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve a disclosure dispute (see 22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; cf. Fanelli v Fanelli, 296 AD2d 373; Romero v Korn, 236 AD2d 598). Additionally, the sanction imposed by the Family Court pursuant to CPLR 2308 (a) was appropriate as, contrary to the mother's contention, she did not comply with the order dated August 17, 2005 and the so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum because the telephone records produced were not from her cellular telephone account and did not correspond to the time period requested, i.e., April 19, 2005 through April 21, 2005.


Summaries of

Manair v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 2006
32 A.D.3d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Manair v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT W.A. MCNAIR, Respondent, v. NATOYE M. BENNETT…

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

Date published: Aug 29, 2006

Citations

32 A.D.3d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6334
819 N.Y.S.2d 838