Source: http://www.legalvictor.net/2011/10/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:53:35+00:00

Document:
October | 2011 | Victor M. Metsch, Esq.
This article was originally published in the New York Law Journal.
A newly-enacted amendment to the CPLR, coupled with a recent decision applying the new statute, brings to mind the old proverb – “Be careful what you wish for; you are apt to get it”. And the amendment also implicates a modern adage – “The law of unintended consequences: an effect contrary to what was originally intended”.
CPLR § 3119 became law on January 1, 2011 and applies to “requests for discovery in cases pending on or after [the] effective date”. The statute was enacted to simplify and expedite the process for the issuance of subpoenas in connection with out-of-state judicial proceedings. CPLR § 3119,, a version of the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, permits a subpoena to be served without the need for either a legal proceeding and/or a court order in New York.
Before § CPLR 3119 was available, a party to a litigation elsewhere who sought to subpoena a witness or documents in New York had (and still has the choice) to “run the [procedural] gauntlet” of CPLR § 3102(e). Step one: obtain a commission from the out-of-state court where the action was pending. Step two: commence a special proceeding in New York based upon the commission. Step three: establish the nature of, and the need for, the discovery sought. And step four: obtain an order in the special proceeding permitting the issuance of the subpoena.
CPLR § 3119 “cuts to the chase” by eliminating the last three steps. And, in place of the first step, CPLR established two options. Option one: A subpoena issued by the out-of-state court may be submitted to the clerk of the court in the county where the discovery is sought. And the clerk “shall promptly” issue a reciprocal New York subpoena for service upon the person to whom it is addressed. Or option two: engage a New York attorney; and provide local counsel with “the original or a true copy” of the out-of-state subpoena. The New York attorney may then issue and serve a “mirror image” subpoena.
So far so good. CPLR § 3119 seems almost too good to be true!!!
Here the key word is “almost”. A subpoena issued by the clerk of the court or a New York attorney still has to be properly served. Compliance must be compelled (by a court proceeding) if the witness does not appear. And a motion to quash may be made or a protective order may be sought (in a court proceeding) if there is an objection to the necessity for, or the scope of, the subpoena. Thus, the facial “simplicity” of CPLR § 3119 may have to yield to the “complexity” of CPLR § 2304 (“Motion to quash, fix conditions or modify.”) and CPLR § 2308 (“Disobedience of subpoena.”).
The “taxing” saga began in 1996 and 1997 when the California Franchise Tax Board (the “FTB”) issued assessments of taxes, penalties and interest against a non-resident, Gilbert P. Hyatt (“Hyatt”), for the underpayment of taxes in 1991 and 1992. Hyatt claimed that he became a resident of Nevada on, and did not owe California taxes on income received subsequent to, September 26, 1991. After further investigation and discovery, on November 1, 2007 the FTB’s Protest Division issued a final determination that adhered to the initial assessments. Hyatt appealed to the California State Board of Equalization.
On March 11, 2011, while Hyatt’s appeal was pending, the California State Controller issued subpoenas duces tecum. The subpoenas were addressed to the custodian of records of three non-parties: U.S. Philips Corporation (“U.S. Philips”), Jack Haken (“Haken”) and Algy Tamoshunas (“Tamoshunas”). U.S. Philips held a license from Hyatt, effective in July 1991, for a group of patents. And Haken and Tamoshunas were in-house counsel for U.S. Philips who worked on the licensing of the patents to other companies.
The Attorney General of California petitioned the California Superior Court for the out-of-state depositions of U.S. Philips, Haken and Tamoshunas and to compel compliance with the subpoenas. On April 14, 2011, without judicial review (as permitted under California law), the Clerk of the Superior Court issued the requested commissions for the issuance of subpoenas.
The New York subpoenas were issued by counsel pursuant to CPLR § 3119(e). Hyatt moved by Order to Show Cause to quash the subpoenas.
What is the lesson of California Franchise Tax Board? CPLR § 3119 may have created “front end” simplicity and expediency in the issuance of subpoenas relating to out-of-state judicial proceedings only to create “back end” issues and complications relating to the enforcement of those subpoenas. Complications may arise especially where, as was the case with the FTB, there is no pre-service judicial scrutiny of the subpoena either out-of-state or in New York.
CPLR § 3102(e) may be invoked to obtain a subpoena ex parte (although the Court may require notice to the witness or her attorney) and does not require a showing of special circumstances. In marked contrast, as California Franchise Tax Board demonstrates, a subpoena issued under CPLR § 3119 may trigger a full-blown adversarial special proceeding encompassing issues of procedural, substantive and foreign law.
In a word, before proceeding under CPLR § 3119, consider whether or not to proceed under § CPLR 3102(e). Will your client’s interests be better served by “up front” judicial consideration (where you represent the petitioner and can select the venue) or “after-the-fact” judicial review (where you represent the respondent and may not be in control)?
Your sub-contractor client has not been paid for work, labor and materials on a real estate construction job. She sends you copies of the sub-contract, a summary of the work done and the invoices. She asks you to prepare and file a mechanic’s lien.
Seems simple enough – take a standard pre-prepared form, fill in the blanks and file the lien. Nothing to it!
Of course, that was the easy part. Identifying possible defenses to a mechanic’s lien goes far beyond the narrow confines of the Lien Law. And defending the lien, if challenged, may give you—and your client—angina.

References: § 3119
 § 3119
 § 3102
 § 3119
 § 3119
 § 3119
 § 2304
 § 2308
 § 3119
 § 3119
 § 3102
 § 3119
 § 3119