You are here: / / THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE...
,

THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued. The nonparty, Bijari, listed for sale the real property where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff sought information about the sale because the information could be relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied:

CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from nonparties to an action, provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . . . any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” … .. Under that statute, the party who served the subpoena has an initial minimal obligation to show that the nonparty was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that the disclosure is sought … . Once that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . …

For a protective order to be issued, the party seeking such an order must make a “factual showing of ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice'” … . “‘Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to issue appropriate protective orders to limit discovery. . . . [T]his discretion is to be exercised with the competing interests of the parties and the truth-finding goal of the discovery process in mind'” … . Here, Bijari failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order with regard to the subpoena…. . Nunez v Peikarian, 2022 NY Slip Op 04969, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action the plaintiff subpoenaed a nonparty who listed for sale the property where plaintiff was injured. The information plaintiff sought was relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied. The subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued.

 

You might also like
ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CAN APPEAL A CHANGE OF CUSTODY TO WHICH THE CHILD IS OPPOSED, THE CHILD IS AGGRIEVED FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD A FULL CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT FIRST ASSESSING THE ALLEGATIONS OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PRIOR MODIFICATION PETITIONS, AND FAMILY COURT MUST GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHILD’S WISHES (SECOND DEPT).
Neglect Proceeding “Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal” Properly Considered and Findings of Forensic Psychologist Properly Ignored in Modification of Custody Proceeding
THE USUAL STRICT CRITERIA FOR VACATING A DEFAULT ORDER ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER AWARDING CUSTODY TO FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ VAN FAILED TO YIELD TO APPELLANT’S VEHICLE, WHICH HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN DEFENDANTS’ VAN ATTEMPTED TO MERGE INTO APPELLANT’S LANE; THE DASH CAM VIDEO DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT-DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; APPELLANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE... STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE...