Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Fanelli v. Fanelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 1, 2002

296 A.D.2d 373; 745 N.Y.S.2d 435; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Siegel v. Glassman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
148 Magnolia, LLC v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Blauman-Spindler v. Blauman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Melvin v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
McNair v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Cestaro v. Mun Yuen Roger Chin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Levy v. Grandone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), entered September 5, 2001, which denied her motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon a nonparty, and, sua sponte, awarded the defendant an attorneys fee in the sum of $750.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded the defendant an attorneys fee is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from a sua sponte order, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide the required affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute (see 22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; Hegler v Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, 280 AD2d 645; Romero v Korn, 236 AD2d 598). Moreover, suppression of the requested documents was not warranted under the circumstances of this case (see Gutierrez v Dudock, 276 AD2d 746; DiMarco v Sparks, 212 AD2d 965). O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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