Justice Tolbert
Click here to see Judicial Profile
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=118608
PLAINTIFF wife’s order to show cause sought to quash judicial subpoenas duces tecum served on Google Inc. and America Online Inc. issued by defendant husband’s counsel. Both subpoenas sought information on plaintiff’s e-mail correspondence between her and Chase Bank. The court noted its confusion as to the relevance and need for such information. Plaintiff argued she provided defendant all her Chase Bank statements and defendant had access to his own, which clearly spoke of the financial issues in this action, specifically pertaining to Chase. The court disagreed with defendant’s contention that there was relevance to the subpoenas, finding none, and granted plaintiff’s motion to quash both subpoenas. Defendant cross-moved alleging plaintiff’s counsel violated a uniform rule, 22 NYCRR 202.7(f), and based on same, defendant sought sanctions. The court again disagreed, finding no violation by counsel and denied the cross-motion. It found defendant’s counsel’s citing of a prior proceeding against plaintiff’s counsel was inappropriate and a disrespectful presentation to the court. The court admonished that such behavior would not be tolerated, reminding both counsel to “stick to the facts that are relevant” in all future applications.
