§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

43 Cited authorities

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

    21 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 1,965 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 203 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. Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp.

    963 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 251 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order to prevent discovery material obtained by a debtor in a collection action from being used in related litigation in another country in which the debtor claimed that an individual negotiated high risk loans on behalf of debtor

  5. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams

    71 N.Y.2d 327 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 229 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"

  6. 148 Magnolia v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    62 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 106 times

    May 12, 2009. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered July 23, 2008, which denied defendant-appellant Public Contracting NYC, Inc.'s motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena served by defendant-respondent Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. The demanded documents consist of a file reflecting the results of an investigation performed by appellant's insurance

  7. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Occidental Gems, Inc.

    11 N.Y.3d 843 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 94 times

    Argued October 21, 2008. Decided November 24, 2008. APPEALS, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 28, 2007. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.; op 2006 NY Slip Op 30530[U]), which had denied plaintiffs' motion to confirm the report of the special referee directing disclosure, and granted defendant Occidental

  8. Tannenbaum v. City of New York

    30 A.D.3d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying requests to depose a non-party in the absence of special circumstances

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,578 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 1101 - Evidence of character to prove conduct

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1101   Cited 6,040 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Regarding admissibility of character evidence

  13. Section 813 - Opinion testimony on value

    Cal. Evid. Code § 813   Cited 173 times

    (a) The value of property may be shown only by the opinions of any of the following: (1) Witnesses qualified to express such opinions. (2) The owner or the spouse of the owner of the property or property interest being valued. (3) An officer, regular employee, or partner designated by a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association that is the owner of the property or property interest being valued, if the designee is knowledgeable as to the value of the property or property interest. (b)