Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re Validation Review Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 31, 1997

237 A.D.2d 614; 655 N.Y.S.2d 1005; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3079

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Kooper v. Kooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re the Estate of Ehmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Conte v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Butt v. New York Medical College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Vogel v. Benwil Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Newman v. Lotwin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 to dissolve a corporation, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated February 22, 1996, as granted the motion of David Schimel to quash judicial subpoenas and to vacate related notices of deposition served upon nonparty witnesses Elizabeth DeEspina and Island Peer Review Organization.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*615The court properly concluded that the subpoenas served upon, inter alia, nonparty witnesses Elizabeth DeEspina and Island Peer Review Organization (hereinafter IPRO) were facially invalid and unenforceable because they did not contain, or were not accompanied by, a notice setting forth the reason why disclosure was sought (see, Knitwork Prods. Corp. v Helfat, 234 AD2d 345; De Stafano v MT Health Clubs, 220 AD2d 331; Rickicki v Borden Chem., 195 AD2d 986; Kaufman v Red Ground Corp., 170 AD2d 484). Although the petitioner represents that substitute subpoenas containing the required notice were served, the record on appeal does not contain the substitute subpoenas served upon DeEspina or IPRO. Therefore, we cannot determine whether these substitute subpoenas did, in fact, contain the required notice and, if so, whether such notice was sufficient.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting David Schimel’s motion to quash these subpoenas (City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358). The petitioner, who seeks disclosure from nonparty witnesses, failed to establish "special circumstances” by demonstrating that the information sought to be discovered cannot be obtained from other sources (see, Schwarz v Schwarz, 227 AD2d 611; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.