Legal Opinion

Byoung Sool Kim v. Cho Ho Bae

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

Decided November 1, 1993PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered July 11, 1991, which denied their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum against their counsel.

*207Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to quash, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have established that they possess a good faith basis for seeking to depose the defendants’ attorney, and that the information sought is both relevant and necessary (see, Frybergh v…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McNulty v. McNultyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  2. Frybergh v. KouffmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  3. Planned Industrial Centers, Inc. v. Eric Builders, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. Glen 4912 Corp. v. StraussAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  5. SPA Realty Associates v. Springs AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of WinstonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v. Gulf Oil, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API