Case Name: Pinnacle Sports Media & Entertainment, LLC, Appellant, v. Leslie Kai Greene, Also Known as Kai L. Greene, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.); Kai L. Greene, Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Peter Anske, Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-10-26
Citations: 154 A.D.3d 601
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pinnacle Sports Media & Entertainment, LLC, Appellant, v Leslie Kai Greene, Also Known as Kai L. Greene, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) Kai L. Greene, Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Peter Anske, Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Pinnacle Sports Media & Entertainment, LLC, Appellant, v Leslie Kai Greene, Also Known as Kai L. Greene, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) Kai L. Greene, Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Peter Anske, Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants.
[63 NYS3d 343]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered March 10, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, granted so much of defendant/second third-party plaintiff Kai L. Greene's motion as sought production of plaintiff Pinnacle Sports Media & Entertainment, LLC's tax returns from 2013 to 2015, with all information other than Pinnacle's revenue to be redacted, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied.
Disclosure of tax returns is generally disfavored due to their confidential and private nature (see Lee v Chun Ka Luk, 132 AD3d 515, 516 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 975 [2016]), and Greene has not made a sufficiently particularized showing that the information contained in Pinnacle's tax returns, even if redacted to only reveal Pinnacle's revenue, is necessary to prove his claims (see id.). Moreover, he does not address why other sources are inadequate, inaccessible, or unlikely to be productive (see id.).
Concur — Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.