From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stafford v. EV Transp. Servs.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

Nos. 2712 2712A Index No. 652390/23 Case No. 2024-00418 2024-03689

10-03-2024

James Stafford, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EV Transportation Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

David E. Schorr, New York, for appellant. Vedder Price, P.C., New York (Daniel C. Green of counsel), for respondent.


David E. Schorr, New York, for appellant.

Vedder Price, P.C., New York (Daniel C. Green of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Friedman, González, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered June 5, 2024, which partially granted plaintiff's motion to compel and for contempt on the grounds that service of the underlying subpoenas was proper, and directed that failure to comply with the order would subject defendant to contempt sanctions and reimbursement of all attorneys' fees for the enforcement of the judgment in this matter, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order and judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 18, 2024, which effectively granted defendant's motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Because the subject subpoenas were served outside the State of New York, the subpoenas were unenforceable. This is consistent with New York's constitutional limitation on Supreme Court's authority to serve subpoenas outside the State of New York (see Coombs v Rowand, 39 A.D.2d 532, 532 [1st Dept 1972], lv dismissed 31 N.Y.2d 853 [1972]; Siemens & Halske, GmbH. v Gres, 37 A.D.2d 768 [1st Dept 1971]; P.M. v M.G., 65 Misc.3d 1218 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51720[U] *6 [Family Ct, Westchester County 2019]; see also Coutts Bank [Switzerland] v Anatian, 275 A.D.2d 609, 611 [1st Dept 2000] [Sullivan, J., concurring]).

Although the denial of a motion to reargue is not generally appealable, Supreme Court considered defendant's argument. Thus, while it was an appealable order (Lewis v Rutkovsky, 153 A.D.3d 450, 453 [1st Dept 2017]), in view of the foregoing, it is dismissed as academic.


Summaries of

Stafford v. EV Transp. Servs.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Stafford v. EV Transp. Servs.

Case Details

Full title:James Stafford, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EV Transportation Services, Inc.…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 3, 2024

Citations

2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)