Legal Opinion

Revyuk v. Dunbar

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1957PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFelix G. Benvenga, J.

Plaintiff moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act, requiring plaintiff’s former attorney to produce certain papers and documents in connection with the proposed examination before trial of the plaintiff. A notice served simultaneously upon the plaintiff requires her to produce the same documents and papers.

Plaintiff’s former attorney has expressed his willingness to produce the subpoenaed papers and documents, subject to plaintiff’s claim that they contain privileged or other confidential communications.

Plaintiff moves to quash the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Marie Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  2. Beeber v. Empire Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  3. Parker v. Culler Furniture Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
  4. Lazarus v. Rosen Bros. Neckwear Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Turnpike Delicatessen & Restaurant, Inc. v. CohenNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Racioppa v. HansonNew York Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API