Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenadepositionhearingmotion
subpoenadepositionhearingmotion

Related Cases

Athorne v. Athorne, 100 N.H. 413, 128 A.2d 910
View Case »
Kearns v. Kearns, 6 N.C.App. 319, 170 S.E.2d 132
View Case »
Crummey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 684 Fed.Appx. 416, 119 A.F.T.R.2d 2017-1387, 2017-1 USTC P 50,195
View Case »
In re Tompkins’ Estate, nan
View Case »
Martina v. Elrod, 293 Ga. 538, 748 S.E.2d 412, 13 FCDR 2811
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 158 A.D.3d 686, 68 N.Y.S.3d 733 (Mem), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 01058

Facts

In this proceeding to settle a judicial account, two nonparties moved to quash subpoenas served upon them by the objectants. The Supreme Court granted those motions, directing the objectants to pay the nonparties' costs of responding to the subpoenas. Subsequently, the objectants moved for leave to reargue and renew their opposition to the motions to quash, as well as for the appointment of a referee or a judicial hearing officer to supervise the petitioner's deposition. The court issued three orders on February 27, 2015, addressing these motions.

In this proceeding to settle a judicial account, two nonparties moved to quash subpoenas served upon them by the objectants. The Supreme Court granted those motions, directing the objectants to pay the nonparties' costs of responding to the subpoenas. Subsequently, the objectants moved for leave to reargue and renew their opposition to the motions to quash, as well as for the appointment of a referee or a judicial hearing officer to supervise the petitioner's deposition. The court issued three orders on February 27, 2015, addressing these motions.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the objectants could successfully reargue their opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas and whether the court should appoint a referee to supervise the deposition.

The main legal issues were whether the objectants could successfully reargue their opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas and whether the court should appoint a referee to supervise the deposition.

Rule

The court applied the rule that a motion for leave to renew must be based on new facts or a change in the law that would alter prior determinations, as per CPLR 2221(e).

The court applied the rule that a motion for leave to renew must be based on new facts or a change in the law that would alter prior determinations, as per CPLR 2221(e).

Analysis

The Supreme Court properly denied the objectants' motions for leave to renew their opposition to the nonparties' prior motions, as those motions were not based on new facts or changes in the law. The court also found that its determinations regarding the petitioner's deposition were reasonable and not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The Supreme Court properly denied the objectants' motions for leave to renew their opposition to the nonparties' prior motions, as those motions were not based on new facts or changes in the law. The court also found that its determinations regarding the petitioner's deposition were reasonable and not an improvident exercise of discretion.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the orders denying the objectants' motions and awarded one bill of costs to the petitioner.

The court affirmed the orders denying the objectants' motions and awarded one bill of costs to the petitioner.

Who won?

The petitioner prevailed in the case because the court upheld the prior orders quashing the subpoenas and directed the objectants to pay the nonparties' costs.

The petitioner prevailed in the case because the court upheld the prior orders quashing the subpoenas and directed the objectants to pay the nonparties' costs.

You must be