Legal Opinion

Mendelovitz v. Cohen

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

Decided March 11, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, inter alia, quashing the subpoenas served upon the nonparties Regal Home Collections, Inc., Mayer Rispler, Nat Safern, and Harri Shan, as the discovery sought is not material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see White Bay Enters, v Newsday, Inc., 288 AD2d 211 [2001]; see also Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v First Secured Capital Corp., 28 AD3d 457, 459-460 [2006]; Golden Mark Maintenance v Alarcon, 265 AD2d 377 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v. First Capital Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  2. Golden Mark Maintenance, Ltd. v. AlarconAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. White Bay Enterprises, Ltd. v. Newsday, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kooper v. KooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  2. Humphrey v. KulbaskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  3. Kessel-Crawley v. HodgesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  4. McAlwee v. Westchester Health Assoc., PLLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018