You are here: / / Subpoena Can Not Be Used for Discovery Purposes​
,

Subpoena Can Not Be Used for Discovery Purposes​

The Second Department noted that a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for discovery purposes:

“[A] subpoena duces tecum may not be used for purposes of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence”…. Here, the subpoena duces tecum served by the defendants improperly sought production of certain materials that the defendants had failed to seek during the discovery process, or that had previously been the subject of an unsuccessful motion to compel disclosure. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of the plaintiff and the third-party defendant to quash the subpoena duces tecum … . Wahab v Agris & Brenner, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03667, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Exercising Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Based On Presence of Subsidiary Within Jurisdiction—the “Department Doctrine”
Failure to Allege Specific Facts to Rebut Process Server Affidavit Required Denial of Motion to Vacate Judgment w/o Hearing
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​
STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION.
DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANT, IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PROXIMATE CAUSE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF, IN OPPOSITION, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion... Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or...