Legal Opinion

Lee v. Luk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 15, 2009PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The trial court properly directed Luk to provide financial information and documentation, since the financial disclosure does not relate solely to the accounting claims but is relevant and material to the other causes of action asserted in the amended complaint, including those for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion (see A. Colish, Inc. v Abramson, 150 AD2d 210, 211 [1989]).

Plaintiffs claims were limited by the court’s prior order finding that plaintiff could recover “money damages from [Luk] for her acts going back to August 30, 1999.” Thus, information regarding Luk’s acts before…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matos v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Brandon v. ChefetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. A. Colish, Inc. v. AbramsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  4. Nasco, North Atlantic Steel Co. v. Da SilvaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lee v. Chun Ka LukAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API