Legal Opinion
Needleman v. Tornheim
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 11, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the nonparty, Quin Realty Corp., which was to quash the subject subpoena duces tecum, since the record fails to demonstrate that service *774of the subpoena was made on all parties to the action as required by statute (see CPLR 3120 [3]; 2303; Morano v Slattery Skanska, Inc., 18 Misc 3d 464, 472 [2007]; Matter of Roth, 7 Misc 3d 1010[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 050521[U] [2005]; Bldg Mgt. Co. v Schwartz, 3 Misc 3d 351, 354-355 [2004]). Additionally, the subpoena was facially defective and subject to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Block v. MageeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Kooper v. KooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Parry v. MurphyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Williams v. NaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- American Express Property Casualty Co. v. VinciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Capacity Group of NY, LLC v. DuniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014