You are here: / / Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4)...

Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) Explained/Criteria for a Motion to Quash and Opposition to the Motion to Quash Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined the nature of the notice requirements for subpoenaing a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a)(4), and the criteria for determining a motion to quash the subpoena:

We conclude that the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the “circumstances or reasons” underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is “utterly irrelevant” to the action or that the “futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.” Should the witness meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is “material and necessary” to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant. Matter of Kapon v Koch, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327, CtApp 4-3-14

 

You might also like
SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
BY CLICKING ON CONTRACT TERMS ON HER SMART PHONE, PLAINTIFF AGREED TO ARBITRATE HER PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM AGAINST UBER; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY AFTER AN UBER DRIVER LEFT HER OFF IN TRAFFIC (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).
THE $140 MILLION PAID BY BEAR STEARNS TO THE SEC TO SETTLE AN ACTION ALLEGING THE FACILITATION OF LATE TRADING WAS NOT A “PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW” AND THEREFORE WAS A COVERED LOSS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (CT APP).
COURT RECORDS RELATED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE COMMITMENT AND RETENTION OF DANGEROUS MENTALLY ILL ACQUITTEES ARE NOT CLINICAL RECORDS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTOMATIC SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CT APP).
Parking Lots Owned by a Federal-Income-Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization Formed to Facilitate Commercial Development Were Not Entitled to a Charitable Exemption from Real Property Taxes—The Parking Lots Were “Used” to Increase Commerce Which Is Not a Charitable Use Under the Real Property Tax Law
Lease; Services Agreement Did Not Allow Building Owner to Recover for Condition of Property

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

Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should... Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed