Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Saul FRIEDMAN, appellant, v. OCEAN DREAMS, LLC, et al., respondents.
In an action to impose a constructive trust, for an accounting of partnership assets, and to recover damages for the breach of a fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 17, 2008, as granted the defendants' motion for a protective order, to quash 21 subpoenas, and to limit discovery to the claims alleged in the defendants' counterclaims pending the determination of an appeal from an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and third causes of action in the complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.
The defendants moved for a protective order, to quash 21 subpoenas, and to direct that discovery shall be limited to the claims alleged in the defendants' counterclaims. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not determine the underlying merits of the defendants' motion, which still must be adjudicated. The order appealed from merely stayed discovery pending an appeal from an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and third causes of action in the complaint. In light of our determination on that appeal (see Friedman v. Ocean Dreams, 56 A.D.3d 719, 868 N.Y.S.2d 131 decided herewith), the instant appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of International Ry. Co. v. Schwab, 203 App.Div. 878, 196 N.Y.S. 932; 88th Street Realty, LP v. Arabian, 19 Misc.3d 132(A), 2008 WL 879736).
We deny the defendants' application to impose a sanction against the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1; Capuano v. Platzner Intl. Group, 5 A.D.3d 620, 774 N.Y.S.2d 780).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 25, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)