STAFFORD v. EV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered June 5, 2024, which partially granted plaintiff's motion to compel and for contempt on the grounds that service of the underlying subpoenas was proper, and directed that failure to comply with the order would subject defendant to contempt sanctions and reimbursement of all attorneys' fees for the enforcement of the judgment in this matter, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.  Appeal from order and judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 18, 2024, which effectively granted defendant's motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Because the subject subpoenas were served outside the State of New York, the subpoenas were unenforceable.  This is consistent with New York's constitutional limitation on Supreme Court's authority to serve subpoenas outside the State of New York (see Coombs v. Rowand, 39 A.D.2d 532, 532, 331 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept. 1972], lv dismissed 31 N.Y.2d 853, 340 N.Y.S.2d 166, 292 N.E.2d 307 [1972];  Siemens & Halske, GmbH. v. Gres, 37 A.D.2d 768, 324 N.Y.S.2d 639 [1st Dept. 1971];  P.M. v. M.G., 65 Misc.3d 1218[A], 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 51720[U] *6, 2019 WL 5493475 [Family Ct., Westchester County 2019];  see also Coutts Bank [Switzerland] v. Anatian, 275 A.D.2d 609, 611, 713 N.Y.S.2d 45 [1st Dept. 2000] [Sullivan, J., concurring]).

Although the denial of a motion to reargue is not generally appealable, Supreme Court considered defendant's argument.  Thus, while it was an appealable order (Lewis v. Rutkovsky, 153 A.D.3d 450, 453, 58 N.Y.S.3d 391 [1st Dept. 2017]), in view of the foregoing, it is dismissed as academic.