Cespedes v Kraja

2010 NY Slip Op 00796 [70 AD3d 622]

February 2, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Jasmine Cespedes, Plaintiff, v Edmir Kraja, Defendant,Mark Limousine, Ltd., Appellant.

—[*1]Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeanne Boyle of counsel), forappellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mark Limousine, Ltd.,appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 3,2009, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel a nonparty,Janet Barahona, to comply with its subpoena.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and theappellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel the nonparty Janet Barahona to complywith its subpoena is granted.

Under the circumstances presented, in support of its unopposed motion to compelcompliance with the subpoena, the appellant sufficiently articulated the need for the discoverysought (see Velez v Hunts PointMulti-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111 [2006]; cf. Matter of Stevens Imports vLack, 52 AD2d 928 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 939 [1977]), and that the informationsought could not be obtained from other sources (see Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. vProvidence Washington Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 520, 521-522 [2002]; Bostrom v WilliamPenn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482, 483 [2001]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall andSgroi, JJ., concur.