January 16, 2014
P1 Bari Yunis Schorr, Plaintiff-Respondent,
David Evan Schorr, Defendant-Appellant
David E. Schorr, appellant, Pro se.
Newman & Denney P.C., New York (Louis I. Newman of counsel), for respondent.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to quash nonparty subpoenas, for a protective order requiring
defendant to seek leave of the court before issuing any further subpoenas or deposition demands, and for interim counsel fees, and awarded plaintiff $20,000 in such fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this matrimonial action, which has been the subject of numerous motions and has been before this Court on two occasions ( see 96 A.D.3d 583, 948 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept 2012]; 106 A.D.3d 544, 965 N.Y.S.2d 120 [1st Dept 2013]), the court again properly awarded plaintiff counsel fees after considering the financial positions of the parties and the circumstances of the case ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237; see also 96 A.D.3d at 584). The record shows that defendant has continued to engage in extensive motion practice, including bringing motions that have little merit, and his claim that he is the non-monied spouse also continues to lack support ( id.).
The court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to quash the subpoenas. Defendant failed to show that he could not obtain the information sought in the course of depositions of plaintiff or other sources ( see Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG, 96 A.D.3d 433, 944 N.Y.S.2d 884 [1st Dept 2012]; Menkes v Beth Abraham Servs ., 89 A.D.3d 647, 933 N.Y.S.2d 548 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, plaintiff has explicitly stated that she would provide all relevant information to defendant. The court also exercised its discretion in a provident manner in issuing the protective order based on defendant's issuance of harassing and unnecessary subpoenas ( see CPLR 3103[a]; In re U.S. Pioneer Electronics Corp., 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 393 N.E.2d 478, 419 N.Y.S.2d 484 ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.