Ayubo v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant Eastman Kodak Company, Inc. (hereinafter Kodak) incorrectly denominated its motion as one for a protective order rather than as a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum (see, CPLR 2304). The Supreme Court improperly treated the motion as one for a protective order and granted it based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to have complied with the calendar rules relating to discovery requests subsequent to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness.
A motion to quash or vacate is the exclusive vehicle to challenge the validity of a subpoena or the jurisdiction of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Santangello v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'n v. MurtaghAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- Matter of Dairymen's League Cooperative Assn v. MurtaghNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. v. HynesNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People ex rel. Hickox v. HickoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Reuters Ltd. v. Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Myrie v. ShelleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Technology Multi Sources, S.A. v. Stack Global Holdings, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Gertz v. RichardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Morano v. Slattery Skanska, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2007
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.