Opinion
2003-08878.
Decided March 15, 2004.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County (Hochberg, S.M.), dated September 19, 2003, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and directed the production of the subpoenaed items.
Steven J. Mandel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (James Nemia of counsel), for appellant.
Louann Fernald, Fishkill, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
In this postjudgment child support proceeding brought by the mother for downward modification of her child support obligation, the father moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum demanding, inter alia, production of his financial records. The Family Court denied the father's motion and directed production of the subpoenaed items. We reverse. The subpoena duces tecum lacked specificity and was overbroad insofar as it failed to specify the documents sought with "reasonable particularity" (CPLR 3120; Matter of Ehmer, 272 A.D.2d 540). Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena should have been granted.
In light of our determination, we need not address the father's remaining contentions.
FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.