Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Center, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1991
• Citation: 178 A.D.2d 311,576 N.Y.S.2d 793
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Leonard S. FIORE, Sr., Leonard S. Fiore, Jr., Richard F. Fiore, Harry K. Sickler and Thomas C. Large d/b/a FL & S Associates, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. OAKWOOD PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, INC., Joseph M. Aronow and Anthony Galioto, Defendants-Appellants.

Page 793

576 N.Y.S.2d 793

178 A.D.2d 311

Leonard S. FIORE, Sr., Leonard S. Fiore, Jr., Richard F. Fiore, Harry K. Sickler and Thomas C. Large d/b/a FL & S Associates, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. OAKWOOD PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, INC., Joseph M. Aronow and Anthony Galioto, Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 19, 1991

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 19, 1990, which denied a motion by non-party movants Frank & Aronow, P.C., pursuant to CPLR 5240 to vacate a subpoena duces tecum and restraining notices served on the movants and on Bank Leumi Trust Company in connection with enforcement pursuant to Article 52 of the CPLR of a judgment of the same court entered against defendants herein on September 8, 1989, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of $250 costs and disbursements of this appeal and Appeal No. 44812N, decided simultaneously herewith, payable to respondents. Plaintiffs herein have commenced supplementary proceedings against the movant on the ground that it holds assets of defendant Joseph M. Aronow, a judgment debtor pursuant to a judgment affirmed by this Court, 164 A.D.2d 737, 565 N.Y.S.2d 799, stay denied, 78 N.Y.2d 952, 573 N.Y.S.2d 647, 578 N.E.2d 445. A protective order pursuant to CPLR 5240 is a matter of the IAS court's broad discretion (Guardian Loan Co., v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 519, 419 N.Y.S.2d 56, 392 N.E.2d 1240), and should be issued with caution (Reynders v. Reynders, 155 A.D.2d 987, 548 N.Y.S.2d 130). Here, the restraining notice on the movant law firm is based on assets in which one of the judgment defendants, a shareholder of the professional corporation, has a direct interest (See Ray v. Jama Productions, 74 A.D.2d 845, 425 N.Y.S.2d 630, app. den., 49 N.Y.2d 709, 429 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 406 N.E.2d 1354). The judicial subpoenas are not overly broad (Cf. Capoccia v. Spiro, 88 A.D.2d 1100, 453 N.Y.S.2d 70), nor are they intended primarily as harassment. (Cf. Seyfarth v. Bi-County Elec. Corp., 73 Misc.2d 363, 341 N.Y.S.2d 533). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the IAS court's denial of the protective order (See Foremost Insurance Co., Grand Rapids Michigan v. Facultative Group, Inc., 80 A.D.2d 598, 436 N.Y.S.2d 40)..

SULLIVAN, J.P., and WALLACH, KUPFERMAN, ASCH and KASSAL, JJ., concur.