Legal Opinion
Stevens v. Cahill
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided October 7, 2015PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Rita M. Mella, S.
On the return date of this motion to quash a subpoena, the court directed plaintiff Hana Nina Stevens to provide for in camera review documents she withheld from disclosure as privileged, including correspondence between her and her attorney, A.R.G., Esq.1 These documents have now been submitted in camera, and they relate to invoices from the Shafrazi Art Gallery for four works of art, ownership of which is *920contested in this action transferred from Supreme Court. Stevens claims that decedent, Patrick Heiniger, her long-term romantic partner, gifted these…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Ulico Casualty Co. v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- In re Grand Jury SubpoenaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Art Capital Group LLC v. RoseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Giannicos v. Bellevue Hospital Medical CenterNew York Supreme Court · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matter of Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v. ColonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v. Gulf Oil, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018