Case Name: Frank DeLeonardis, Appellant, v. Jack Hara et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-02-18
Citations: 136 A.D.3d 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank DeLeonardis, Appellant, v Jack Hara et al., Respondents.
Judges: Concur — Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 558–558

Head Matter:
Frank DeLeonardis, Appellant, v Jack Hara et al., Respondents.
[25 NYS3d 185]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendants' motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas served upon the nonparty accounting firms, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action sounding in alter ego liability and fraudulent conveyance, the IAS Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the documents sought through plaintiff's second notice for discovery and inspection, as well as through the nonparty subpoenas served on defendants' accountants, were not material and necessary to proving the allegations in the complaint, and were otherwise undisco ver able (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000]; see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2009]; CPLR 3101 [a]).
The financial records and other documents sought by plaintiff relating to nonparties have no relevance to proving the allegations in the complaint. Regardless of what these documents show, they are not relevant to whether the judgment debtor Young Girl 7, Inc., or any of the other Young Girl Entities, was the corporate alter ego of defendant Hara, or whether the defendants fraudulently transferred their assets in an effort to evade the underlying judgment.
With respect to the documents bearing some relevance to the complaint's allegations — such as financial documents sought from the named defendants — these documents have already been made available to plaintiff, or were otherwise objected to by defendants in response to plaintiff's earlier requests.
Finally, the financial documents of nonparties sought through the nonparty accountant subpoenas are not only irrevelant, but are not subject to discovery on the basis of their "confidential and private nature" (Gordon v Grossman, 183 AD2d 669, 670 [1st Dept 1992]). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.
Concur — Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.