Newman v. Lotwin, 247 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Newman v. Lotwin, 247 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Kilmer v. Flocar, Inc.
N.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Assocs., Inc., 463 N.Y.S.2d 202 , 94 A.D.2d 103 (1st Dept.1983) (explaining that absent a clear and unequivocal written agreement to arbitrate, the court will not compel arbitration); Siegel v. 141 Bowery Corp., 380 N.Y.S.2d 232 , 51 A.D.2d 209 (1st Dept.1976) (explaining that arbitration is a matter of contract, which must be in writing); Application of Mandel, 201 N.Y.S.2d 620 , 11 A.D.2d 651 (1st Dept.1960) (explaining that an agreement to arbitrate, to be valid, must be supported by unequivocal consent in writing); Nehemiah Gitelson & Sons v. Weavetex Mills, 84 N.Y.S.2d 605 , 274 A.D. 480 …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nagel v. Gammerman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
We find such sanction is warranted by petitioner’s pursuit of this matter which is “completely without merit in law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]), and by vexatious and abusive manner in which this pursuit was undertaken (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; see also Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz & Drogin v Richardson, 247 AD2d 318 , lv dismissed 91 NY2d 1003 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pamela J. Newman
v.
Stanford G. Lotwin, William A. Newman, Nonparty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 24, 1998.
247 A.D.2d 318
Andrias, Mazzarelli, Milonas, Nardelli.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered June 18, 1997, which granted nonparty respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that special circumstances, including the unavailability of the information from other sources, warrant the nonparty disclosure (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 AD2d 614). Accordingly, it was an appropriate exercise of discretion to have quashed the subpoena (see, Mestel & Co. v Smythe Master son & Judd, 215 AD2d 329).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.