Case ID: ad2d_297/html/0577-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Jerry Dier, Respondent. Mollie Bender et al., Appellants.
    [747 NYS2d 169]
   In addition to quashing most of the subpoena duces tecum served on appellants on the ground that most of the subpoena’s document requests were overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, seeking material well beyond the legitimate scope of petitioner-respondent’s need in defending a Maryland divorce action, the IAS court should have granted appellants a protective order limiting the scope of their deposition testimony to the issues raised in item 1 of the subpoena, so that they will be questioned only as to whether respondent’s wife received monies and/or any other property from them between January 1, 1999 to the present and, if so, to what extent (cf. Matter of Ayliffe & Cos., 166 AD2d 223, Iv denied 76 NY2d 714). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.