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.
Elizabeth Kondratick, respondent, v. Orthodox Church in America, appellant, et al., defendant. (Action No. 1) Orthodox Church in America, appellant, v Robert S. Kondratick, et al., respondents. (Action No. 2)
Submitted-April 21, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the Orthodox Church in America, a defendant in Action No. 1 and the plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered May 1, 2009, as amended May 29, 2009, as granted the motion of Elizabeth Kondratick, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Action No. 2, to quash two subpoenas duces tecum served by the Orthodox Church in America upon the nonparty JP Morgan Chase Bank.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of Elizabeth Kondratick, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Action No. 2, to quash two subpoenas duces tecum served by the Orthodox Church in America upon the nonparty JP Morgan Chase Bank is denied.
Although the general rule is that there shall be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution ․ of an action” (CPLR 3101[a]; see Auerbach v. Klein, 30 AD3d 451), nevertheless, “unlimited disclosure is not permitted” (Silcox v. City of New York, 233 A.D.2d 494). A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness, in addition to demonstrating that the disclosure sought is material and necessary, must also set forth circumstances or reasons why disclosure is sought or required from a nonparty (see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Tenore v. Tenore, 45 AD3d 571, 571-572). Here, the Orthodox Church in America (hereinafter the appellant) satisfied this requirement. In light of the claims made by the plaintiff in Action No. 1, the information sought in the subpoenas by the appellant is relevant, material, and necessary, and unavailable through other means. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion to quash the subpoenas (see Tenore v. Tenore, 45 AD3d at 571-572; Thorson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 305 A.D.2d 666; Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 374).
SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, ANGIOLILLO, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2009-07835 (Index Nos. 22717 /07, 009111 /08)
Decided: May 04, 2010
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)