You are here: / / HERE THE SUBPOENAS SEEKING DISCOVERY FROM A NONPARTY WERE DEFECTIVE IN...

HERE THE SUBPOENAS SEEKING DISCOVERY FROM A NONPARTY WERE DEFECTIVE IN THAT THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT ANY NEED ON THE PART OF THE MOVANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE SOUGHT DISCLOSURE IS IRRELEVANT OR FUTILE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the subpoenas seeking discovery from a nonparty were defective, therefore the motion to quash the subpoenas should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty of “matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” in possession of a nonparty, providing the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” … . “The notice requirement of CPLR 3101(a)(4) ‘obligates the subpoenaing party to state, either on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it, the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required'” … . “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'” … .

Here, the subpoenas were defective, since neither the subpoenas nor any accompanying documents set forth “the circumstances or reasons [the] disclosure is sought or required” (CPLR 3101[a][4] … . Ruppert v Ruppert, 2025 NY Slip Op 06884, Second Dept 12-10-25

Practice Point: A subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty must meet the requirements of CPLR 3101(a)(4) by including an explanation of the circumstances or reasons for the disclosure. If that information is not provided, the subpoena is defective and must be quashed on that ground.

 

You might also like
AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
Hearsay, Although Admissible, Will Not Alone Raise a Triable Issue of Fact/A “Contractor” (Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)) Need Only Have the Authority to Control the Work—It Need Not Actually Exercise that Authority
Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act
Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic and Speeding Problems Did Not Violate the “Prior Public Use” Doctrine
Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement with the Plaintiff In Order to Be Entitled to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff ‘s Subsequent Damages Suit (Plaintiff-Employee Is Not Entitled to Both Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Damages But an Unapproved Settlement Is Not Binding)
THE WASHINGTON DC ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONVICTION COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK (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

HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL... WHEN THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK SPOKE TO THE JURORS ABOUT A JURY NOTE WHILE...