From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Varda, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 1999
261 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 4, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


Plaintiff's motion to quash was properly denied, since the information sought by defendants' subpoena duces tecum was not "`utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry'" (Ayubo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 158 A.D.2d 641, 642; Pagan v. City of New York, 180 A.D.2d 545). We have considered plaintiff's additional arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Varda, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 1999
261 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Varda, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. VARDA, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: May 4, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 261

Citing Cases

Weil, Gotshal Manges v. Fashion Boutique

Ms. Martini, as a non-party witness seeking to quash the subpoena, bears the heavy burden of demonstrating…

Velez v. Hunts Point Ctr.

It is well settled that the purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is to compel the production of specific…