From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Crescent Contr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 2003
305 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1125N

May 13, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 10, 2002, which granted defendant Crescent Contracting Corporation's motion to quash four subpoenas issued by counsel for defendant Perini Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Kevin T. Conklin, for defendant-respondent.

James H. Irish, for defendant-appellant.

David S. Rutherford, for non-party respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Gonzalez, JJ.


The trial subpoenas issued by counsel for Perini were properly quashed as overbroad ( see Grotallio v. Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 A.D.2d 383) and improper discovery devices ( see Mestel Co. v. Smythe Masterson Judd, 215 A.D.2d 329). Under the particular circumstances presented, Crescent's motion to quash was timely ( see CPLR 2304).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Crescent Contr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 2003
305 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Crescent Contr. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FREDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CRESCENT CONTRACTING CORP.…

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

Date published: May 13, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 803

Citing Cases

Stountenborough v. Vanderbuilt Glass Sys.

II. Discussion As a preliminary matter, it is within a trial court's discretion to quash a subpoena as overly…

Star Auto Sales of Queens LLC v. Filardo

The limitations suggested in the defendants' counsels' emails themselves serve as tacit recognition of the…