| Technology Multi Sources, S.A. v Stack Global Holdings, Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08062 [44 AD3d 931] |
| October 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Technology Multi Sources, S.A., Respondent, v StackGlobal Holdings, Inc., Defendant. Veja Electronics, Inc., NonpartyAppellant. |
—[*1] Fox Horan & Camerini LLP, New York, N.Y. (Katheleen M. Kundar and Joo Yun Kim ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to enforce a judgment in the principal sum of $103,417.12, the nonparty, VejaElectronics, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), datedJune 28, 2006, which denied its motion for an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum servedupon it by the plaintiff.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of "all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment." Ajudgment creditor is entitled to discovery from either the judgment debtor or a third party in order"to determine whether the judgment debtor[ ] concealed any assets or transferred any assets so asto defraud the judgment creditor or improperly prevented the collection of the underlyingjudgment" (Young v Torelli, 135 AD2d 813, 815 [1987]).
CPLR 5240 provides the court with broad discretionary power to control and regulate theenforcement of a money judgment under article 52 to prevent "unreasonable annoyance, expense,embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice" (Paz v Long Is. R.R., 241 AD2d 486,487 [1997]). Nonetheless,"[a]n application to quash a subpoena should be granted '[o]nly wherethe futility of the [*2]process to uncover anything legitimate isinevitable or obvious' . . . or where the information sought is 'utterly irrelevant toany proper inquiry' " (Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327, 331-332 [1988][citations omitted]; see Myrie v Shelley, 237 AD2d 337, 338 [1997]; cf. Ayubo vEastman Kodak Co.,158 AD2d 641, 642 [1990]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of thenonparty Veja Electronics, Inc. (hereinafter Veja), to quash a subpoena served upon it by theplaintiff Technology Multi Sources, S.A., in the course of seeking to enforce a judgment againstthe defendant Stack Global Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter Stack). Veja shared the same address,telephone number, ownership, and management with the defendant Stack. Moreover, Stack hadnot only been dissolved shortly after the judgment was entered against it, but it also had failed tosatisfy the judgment and had evaded all attempts by the plaintiff to obtain discovery inconnection with enforcement of the judgment. The demands by the plaintiff in its subpoena toVeja were neither overbroad nor burdensome, and sought information which was material andrelevant to the enforcement of the judgment. In addition, Veja failed to make any showing thatthe information being sought was confidential in nature.
Veja's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello andDickerson, JJ., concur.