Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. Luk

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 15, 2009

DENNIS LEE ALSO KNOWN AS LEE MAN FOR DENNIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, LI-MUN-HOK STEVEN, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NANCY LEE LUK ALSO KNOWN AS LEE LAI CHING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, NANCY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 23, 2009, which granted plaintiff Dennis Lee's motion to compel defendant Nancy Lee Luk to respond to interrogatories 2, 12, 17 and 19 and document requests 7, 8, 14, 22, and 37, in part, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to limit disclosure to the period from August 30, 1999 through the present and to strike document request 22, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

603111/05

The trial court properly directed Luk to provide financial information and documentation, since the financial disclosure does not relate solely to the accounting claims but is relevant and material to the other causes of action asserted in the amended complaint, including those for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion (see A. Colish, Inc. v Abramson, 150 AD2d 210, 211 [1989]).

Plaintiff's claims were limited by the court's prior order finding that plaintiff could recover "money damages from [Luk] for her acts going back to August 30, 1999." Thus, information regarding Luk's acts before August 30, 1999 is not "material and necessary in the prosecution... of [the] action" (CPLR 3101; see Nasco, N. Atl. Steel Co. v Da Silva, 167 AD2d 149 [1990]; Matos v City of New York, 78 AD2d 834 [1980]).

Document request 22 is an improper "all-inclusive demand for documents of any and every kind" (Brandon v Chefetz, 101 AD2d 786 [1984]).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091215

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.