Opinion
Submitted April 4, 2000.
May 22, 2000.
In a probate proceeding, the appeals, as limited by the appellant's brief, are from so much of (1) an order of the Surrogate's Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, S.), dated March 26, 1999, as granted the motion of nonparty Louis Viglotti to quash a subpeona directing him to appear for depositions, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 2, 1999, as (a) granted the motion of nonparty Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, LLP, to quash a subpoena duces tecum and (b) denied the appellant's cross motion to compel discovery.
Robert J. Gabler, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.
Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Allan B. Rappleyea of counsel), nonparty respondent pro se.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, LLP, payable by the appellant personally.
The appellant served subpoenas duces tecum and notices to take oral depositions on the nonparty Louis Viglotti, and on the nonparty law firm of Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, LLP, seeking information and documents concerning, inter alia, the settlement of a related action entitled Karl Ehmer v. Alan Hanssler, which had been pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under Index No. 1578/95. The nonparties each represented litigants in the related action. In the orders appealed from, the Surrogate, inter alia, granted the nonparties protective relief. We affirm.
To the extent that the nonparty Louis Viglotti did not proffer documents in response to the appellant's subpoena duces tecum, he proffered an unrebutted affirmation that he was not in possession of any of the documents sought. The subpoena duces tecum served upon the nonparty Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, LLP, lacked specificity and was overbroad (see, Myrie v. Shelley, 237 A.D.2d 337; West 16th Realty Co. v. Ali, 176 Misc.2d 978; CPLR 2301). Furthermore, the subpoena was facially invalid and unenforceable because it did not contain, and was not accompanied by, a notice setting forth the reasons why disclosure was sought (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., Inc., 237 A.D.2d 614; Kaufman v. Red Ground Corp., 170 A.D.2d 484). In any event, to the extent that the information sought by the appellant from the nonparties would not impermissibly tread upon attorney-client privilege or involve attorney work-product (see, Miranda v. Miranda, 184 A.D.2d 286; ACWOO Intl. Steel Corp. v. Frenkel Co., 165 A.D.2d 752), the appellant failed to establish that the information is otherwise unobtainable (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., Inc., 237 A.D.2d 614; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 227 A.D.2d 611; Matter of Beiny, 129 A.D.2d 126). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted protective relief to the nonparties.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J. P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.