| Koch v Sheresky, Aronson & Mayefsky LLP |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 52148(U) [33 Misc 3d 1228(A)] |
| Decided on November 21, 2011 |
| Supreme Court, New York County |
| Goodman, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Vladimira Koch, a/k/a
VLAD'KA KOCH, MICHAEL KOCH, EUROPA DOCU-SEARCH, INC., EUROVID, INC.,
EUROVID KKK, HELIO NATURA, EUROPA DOCU-SEARCH, s.r.o, EUROVIDFKK, s.r.o.,
Plaintiffs,
against Sheresky, Aronson & Mayefsky LLP, DAVID ARONSON individually, BRAGAR, WEXLER, EAGEL & MORGENSTERN, P.C., RAYMOND A. BRAGER individually, RAGUES & MIN, ESQ., RAYMOND RAGUES, individually, D'AGOSTINO & SALVI, LLP, FRANK J. SALVI individually, Defendants. |
The motion of Frank Salvi and D'Agostino & Salvi, LLP (the Salvi Defendants) to quash a subpoena and for a protective order has been resolved by this court's orders dated June 16, 2011 and October 27, 2011, which have been separately filed.
The Salvi Defendants' motion to compel supplemental responses to their March 1, 2010 combined demands is denied. While the Salvi Defendants recently sent a letter to the court stating that this issue had not been resolved, the court's order of June 16, 2011 reflects otherwise. That order directed plaintiff to provide the documents, or bates stamp numbers of documents already produced, that were responsive to the numbered categories of the Salvi Defendant's March 1, 2010 demand, as enumerated in the Salvi Defendants' April 5, 2011. If the Salvi [*2]Defendants maintain that plaintiff has not complied with the court's June 16, 2011 order, or October 27, 2011 order, they may raise this issue again at the next discovery conference.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
Dated: November 21, 2011
ENTER:
___________________________
J.S.C.