§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of John Kapon, et al., Appellants,v.William I. Koch, Respondent.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.

    21 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 1,968 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he words, "material and necessary", are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity"

  2. Velez v. Hunts Point Ctr.

    29 A.D.3d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 204 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is well settled that the purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is to compel the production of specific documents that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a pending judicial proceeding"

  3. Kooper v. Kooper

    74 A.D.3d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 164 times
    In Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 16-17 (2d Dept 2010), a matrimonial action in which the wife subpoenaed the husband's financial documents from third parties, the court held it was not enough that the disclosure was material and necessary; the subpoenaing party also had to show, for example, that the information could not be obtained from other sources.

  4. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams

    71 N.Y.2d 327 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 231 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[t]he central issue" on appeal is whether "the focus of the investigation is . . . beyond the scope of the Attorney-General's investigative powers"

  5. Tannenbaum v. City of New York

    30 A.D.3d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying requests to depose a non-party in the absence of special circumstances

  6. Cirale v. 80 Pine St. Corp.

    35 N.Y.2d 113 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that a wrongful death plaintiff did not show adequate special circumstances to support non-party discovery-from a government agency where plaintiff did not "indicate what endeavors, if any, were undertaken to obtain" independent evidence

  7. Hyatt v. Cal. Franchise Tax Bd.

    105 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 55 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Involving the enforcement of a subpoena issued by a California court based on the request of the New York tax board

  8. In re Sand

    80 A.D.3d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 27 times

    No. 509783. December 16, 2010. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County (Michael C. Lynch, J.), entered August 20, 2009 in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for, among other things, declaratory judgment. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted Katherine Bader's motion to quash a subpoena issued by petitioners. Tuczinski, Cavalier, Gilchrist Collura, P.C., Albany ( Jonathon B. Tingley of counsel), for appellants. Donohue, Sabo, Varley Huttner, L

  9. Matter of Ayliffe and Companies

    166 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the courts "will afford the widest possible latitude in the conduct of such examinations"

  10. Kenford Company, Inc. v. County of Erie

    41 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)   Cited 38 times

    January 18, 1973 Appeal from the Erie Special Term. Present — Del Vecchio, J.P., Marsh, Witmer and Cardamone, JJ. Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to appellants. Memorandum: To assist them in preparation of their answer in this action respondents moved to take the deposition of three nonparty witnesses. Appellants stipulated that the deposition of one of such witnesses could be taken but objected to the taking of depositions of the other