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.
KENNETH ZIOLKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. HAN–TEK, INC., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT, AND ZYNERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Following the deposition of plaintiff's accountant, the attorney for defendant Han–Tek, Inc. (Han–Tek) issued a subpoena duces tecum directing plaintiff's accountant to produce documents relating to the operation of plaintiff's residential real estate business. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena, and we therefore reverse the order and deny the motion. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that “the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” (Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kimmel v. State of New York, 76 AD3d 188, 197). To the contrary, we agree with Han–Tek that the documents sought are relevant to plaintiff's claim for lost wages (see Picart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 226 A.D.2d 165, 165–166), as well as Han–Tek's affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages (see generally Singh v. Friedson, 36 AD3d 605, 606, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 861).
We reject plaintiff's contention that the court was bound by the law of the case to quash the subpoena, based upon a prior order (Griffith, A.J.) denying the motion of defendant Zynergy Solutions, Inc., seeking to compel disclosure of the documents listed in the subpoena. The prior motion preceded the accountant's deposition, which introduced additional evidence and raised further issues, “thereby precluding application of the law of the case doctrine” (Matter of D'Alimonte v. Kuriansky, 144 A.D.2d 737, 738). In any event, the law of the case is not binding upon this Court's review of the order (see Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 165, rearg. denied 37 N.Y.2d 817; Hey v. Town of Napoli, 265 A.D.2d 803, 804).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–01371
Decided: March 27, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)