You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to respond to defendant-Mazal’s demands for production waived any objections to the demands. Mazal’s motion to compel discovery therefore was properly granted. However objections to demands which are palpably improper are not waived by a failure to respond and Mazal’s demand for tax returns may be in the palpably-improper category. Mazal’s motion to compel the production of tax returns should therefore have been denied. But the First Department denied that portion of the motion to compel without prejudice and granted leave to renew if Mazal can make the required showing of need:

The motion court providently deemed the appealing parties’ objections waived under CPLR 3122 as a result of their failure to respond timely to Mazal’s demands for production … . We modify, however, with respect to Mazal’s demands for the appealing parties’ tax returns, as objections to “palpably improper” demands are not waived … .

A demand for the production of tax returns is disfavored and requires “a strong showing of necessity,” and the inability to obtain the information from other sources … . Here, the failure “to identify the particular information the tax returns . . . will contain and its relevance to the claims made” … should have been sufficient to deny Mazal’s motion to compel. Indeed, the tax returns were not necessary to determine whether plaintiffs acquired an interest in the properties in 1994 or retained it thereafter — the reason the motion court gave for granting the motion. However, Mazal argues that the tax returns could be relevant to its affirmative defenses of laches, estoppel, waiver, ratification, and consent, and the motion court did not pass on this issue. As a result, although Mazal did not sufficiently show the inability to obtain the information sought from other sources or, indeed, what specific information the appealing parties’ tax returns will show, we grant leave to renew upon a proper showing … . Demurjian v Demurjian, 2020 NY Slip Op 03479, First Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR MALPRACTICE, FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY; BOTH MOTHER AND SON ARE OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT; IT WAS ALLEGED THE SON’S TAKING A LARGE SALARY AND RECEIVING MILLIONS IN LOANS AGAINST THE BUSINESS WERE DOCUMENTED BY THE ACCOUNTING FIRM BUT NOT DISCLOSED TO MOTHER (FIRST DEPT). ​
“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Loss Occasioned by Bankruptcy Proceedings in Mexico
CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
RESULTS OF NYPD DISCIPLINARY TRIALS ARE PERSONNEL RECORDS EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST 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

SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE;... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION...