Legal Opinion
Miller v. Saretsky
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
W. Bromley Hall, J.
This action, labeled tortious interference with a creditor’s rights, involves defendant’s failure to timely respond to an information subpoena. Defendant has moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint arguing that there is no cause *405of action and, in any event, he did submit the answers in a timely manner.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff obtained a judgment against Alan Saretsky in the amount of $7,061.07 on December 7, 1994. On October 12, 1995, plaintiff duly served upon defendant an information subpoena with questions regarding the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Syndicate Building Corp. v. City University of New YorkNew York Court of Claims · 1993
- Goldberg v. Active Fire Sprinkler Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Minzer v. Heffner Agency, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of LupoliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Rosenblatt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.New York Supreme Court · 2015