York v York
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Post-judgment discovery in a divorce action, specifically whether a judgment debtor could quash a subpoena duces tecum served to help enforce a renewed money judgment.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendant's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum served on him by the plaintiff.
The Appellate Division reversed the order quashing the subpoena and denied the defendant's motion to quash.
The defendant did not meet his initial burden of showing that the requested disclosure was utterly irrelevant or that the subpoena process was obviously futile. Because that threshold showing was not made, the subpoena should have been enforced.
Background
In this divorce and ancillary relief action, the plaintiff had previously obtained a money judgment against the defendant, and that judgment was renewed in 2010. Seeking to enforce the judgment, the plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on the defendant to obtain information and documents relevant to collection efforts. The defendant moved to quash the subpoena, and the plaintiff opposed that motion.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, by order dated March 10, 2022, granted the defendant's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and denied the defendant's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the requested disclosure was utterly irrelevant or that the futility of the subpoena process was inevitable or obvious. The court also noted that the plaintiff's remaining contention was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the New York standard governing motions to quash subpoenas: the party seeking to quash bears the initial burden of showing either complete irrelevance or obvious futility. Unless that burden is met, a subpoena aimed at obtaining potentially legitimate post-judgment enforcement discovery should not be quashed.
A judgment debtor cannot defeat a subpoena duces tecum merely by objecting to it; the movant must first show that the requested material is utterly irrelevant or that the subpoena cannot possibly uncover legitimate information. Where that showing is not made, post-judgment discovery in aid of enforcement should proceed.