Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Skip Header/Navigation
Super Lawyers Leandros A. Vrionedes P.C
Your Injury May Entitle You to a Large Monetary Award For a Free Consultation Call Now 1-800-634-8144 or Click Here to Submit Your Case Information
Avvo Clients' Choice
Leandros A. Vrionedes P.C. - Attorneys At Law
Super Lawyers Leandros A. Vrionedes P.C
Lead Counsel LC Rated
National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
Avvo Reviews Leandros A. Vrionedes
Rated by Super Lawyers Leandros A. Vrionedes

“Quality Service With My Personal Attention”

Bus Accident $5,000,000.00

A 12-year-old student who was traveling by New York City Transit ...

Learn More
Construction Site Accident $2,000,000.00

A laborer who was involved in demolition of a large building ...

Learn More
Elevator Drop $1,400,000.00

Elevator drop accident in a Queens hospital causing neck injury ...

Learn More
School Bus Accident $1,400,000.00

School bus accident in the Bronx as the result of speeding, causing ...

Learn More

Share This Page:

  • Facebook Share
  • Twitter Share
  • LinkedIn Share
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Avvo
  • Yelp
  • Instagram

After 30 Years of Confusion, the Court of Appeals Clarifies the Nonparty Subpoenas Standard

Manhattan_Car_Accident_Lawyer

In New York, the standard for enforcing subpoenas on those who are not parties to a case has been anything but standard. Over the years, courts in the Appellate Division have applied different interpretations of CPLR 3101(a)(4). In a recent ruling, the New York Court of Appeals—the highest state court in New York—resolved this 30-year issue.

Before CPLR 3101(a)(4) was modified in 1984, it had higher requirements. If parties wanted to subpoena nonparties, they needed a court order showing “adequate special circumstances.” The current law requires “circumstances or reasons” but not a court order.

The confusion came from interpreting the “circumstances or reasons” requirement. The First and Fourth Departments applied a standard requiring that nonparty disclosure be relevant to the action. The Second and Third Departments required that the party show whether they could get the necessary information from a source other than the nonparty. If they could, and a motion to quash the subpoena was made, the Court would void the subpoena.

In RE: Kapon v. Koch, the Court of Appeals found that CPLR 3101(a)(4) does not require any of the extra steps used by the Second and Third Departments. Since New York has a history of liberal discovery policies, the Court held that the nonparty’s disclosure only needs to be relevant to the action. The First and Fourth Departments’ interpretation is the new standard.

  • Facebook Share
  • Twitter Share
  • LinkedIn Share
  • RSS