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
DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER’S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KEPT RUNNING, RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT RAN A RED LIGHT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal
PLAINTIFF WAS HIRED BY THE CITY TO INSTALL A SEWER AND DISCOVERED 45,000 TONS OF CONTAMINATED SOIL; DEFENDANT, WHO CAUSED THE CONTAMINATION, REFUSED TO REMEDIATE; PLAINTIFF, WHO REMEDIATED THE CONTAMINATION, STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT (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

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...