N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a litigant to depose a nonparty witness by serving notice without first obtaining a court order.

Brevetti v. Roth · filed 1986-07-16(a)(4)

Thus, the CPLR no longer provides a procedure for a litigant to seek an order permitting examinations before trial of nonparty witnesses. A litigant need merely serve a notice as contemplated by CPLR 3101 (a) (4).

Section 3101(a)(3) and (4) permits a court to deny a nonparty physician’s deposition when the defendants have another medical expert available and can obtain further specialist examinations.

Nathanson v. Johnson · filed 1987-01-22(a)(3) and (4)

Defendants moved to take Dr. Kishner’s deposition in Florida, as a nonparty witness under CPLR 3101 (a) (3) and (4). Special Term denied this application on the basis that defendants already had a medical expert available to testify as to plaintiff’s physical condition, and we perceive no reason to interfere with this exercise of discretion, particularly in view of our determination herein that defendants are entitled to have plaintiff examined by a neurologist and a dentist.

Section 3101(a)(4) does not permit an overbroad nonparty disclosure demand whose relevance to the parties’ claims has not been established.

Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Ass'n · filed 1987-01-08(a)(4)

Defendant has failed to comply with CPLR 3101 (a) (4) and 3120. Defendant’s demand is too broad. Relevancy of the demand to the claims of the parties has not been established.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty disclosure, but a court may restrict it when the requesting party has already received extensive discovery.

Kaye v. Kaye · filed 1987-02-02(a)(4)

We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3103; Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031). We note that the plaintiff has already been afforded extensive discovery pursuant to this court’s prior directive (see, Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty witness who has information needed to prepare fully for trial.

Desai v. Blue Shield of Northeastern New York, Inc. · filed 1987-03-26(a)(4)

A showing that a nonparty witness has information or knowledge of facts needed by a. party to prepare fully for a trial is an adequate ground to require disclosure from the nonparty witness (see, Laboratory of Chromatography v Eastern Labs., 112 AD2d 143, 145; Matter of Catskill Center for Conservation & Dev. v Voss, 70 AD2d 753, 754).

Section 3101(a) permits further examination of a nonparty witness when new material evidence emerges, limited to the new information.

Spango v. F. W. Woolworth Co. · filed 1987-08-13(a)

Given this new evidence as to how the accident occurred, defendant was entitled to a further examination of the nonparty witness, Angela Clancey. CPLR 3101 (a) requires "full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” even though the person to be examined may not be a party. The examination should be limited to the new information revealed by the psychiatrist’s examination.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits depositions of nonparty witnesses when their information is necessary to prepare a defense.

Choiniere v. American Motors Corp. · filed 1987-09-08(a)(4)

We find that the court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion to vacate the notices to take deposition of the three nonparty witnesses. The appellants made an adequate showing that, in order to prepare for trial, it was necessary to examine two of the decedent’s treating physicians and the insurance company which had administered his medical insurance plan (see, New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Kelly, 113 AD2d 285; Heitzman v Abrahamson, 97 AD2d 811).

Section 3101(a)(4) allows a party to depose a nonparty without a court order if the party shows a legitimate basis for the examination.

Textron, Inc. v. Unisys Corp. · filed 1987-11-06(a)(4)

The 1984 amendment to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) has dispensed with the necessity of a court order to depose a nonparty witness, such as Honeywell. This section has been liberally interpreted by the courts. The party seeking the examination of a nonparty witness need only show a legitimate basis for the requested examination.

Section 3101(a)(3) permits a party to depose an out-of-state nonparty witness when circumstances warrant.

Page v. Lar Lakeshore Corp. · filed 1988-03-04(a)(3)

Where circumstances warrant, any party may depose a nonparty witness who resides in another State (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [3]; 3108).

CPLR 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty to contain or be accompanied by a notice stating why the disclosure is required.

Bigman v. Dime Savings Bank · filed 1988-03-14(a)(4)

We note that none of the subpoenas contained or was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require examination of a nonparty when the information sought is not material or necessary to the defense.

Blittner v. Berg · filed 1988-03-14(a)(4)

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to prevent the examination of Mr. Krakauer because the information sought was not material or necessary to the defense of this lawsuit (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Shutt v Pooley, 43 AD2d 59, 61-62; Shapiro v Levine, 104 AD2d 800, 801).

Section 3101(a)(4) allows a court to deny a nonparty physician’s deposition when the existing disclosure is sufficient for trial preparation.

Ferrer v. Horvath · filed 1988-10-03(a)(4)

We therefore cannot say that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it declined to also authorize issuance of a subpoena for the taking of that physician’s deposition (cf., CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary evidence, including a nonparty engineer’s deposition when it will assist trial preparation.

Central Federal Savings, F.S.B. v. 583-587 Broadway Associates · filed 1989-02-23(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) provides that "[tjhere shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’. This provision is "liberally construed to require disclosure where the matter sought will 'assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ”. ... Here, where the witness to be deposed is the engineer retained by Central to review the progress of construction on the mortgaged property, this standard has been met.

Subpoenas for nonparty depositions must contain or be accompanied by a notice stating why disclosure is required; subpoenas lacking that notice are unenforceable.

Yost v. Douris · filed 1989-06-05(a)(4)

The subpoenas served by the mother to compel various nonparty witnesses employed by the appellant to appear at depositions do not contain nor were they accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]). Accordingly, the subpoenas were facially defective and may not be enforced (see, Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 438; Pavia v 810 Broadway Assocs., 130 Misc 2d 1054).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a notice seeking to depose nonparty witnesses to state the circumstances or reasons for the requested disclosure.

Metropolitan Medical Group, P. C. v. Eaton · filed 1989-10-12(a)(4)

Plaintiff failed in its notice to take the depositions of the nonparty witnesses to state "the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Kelly, 113 AD2d 285, 288).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice stating why disclosure from a nonparty is sought; a subpoena seeking testimony without that notice is defective.

In re Deloitte, Haskins & Sells · filed 1990-02-26(a)(4)

Even if the disclosure sought was to obtain testimony and not documents and therefore not governed by CPLR 3120 (b), CPLR 3101 (a) (4) provides for full disclosure by "any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” ... Thus, even if testimony alone was sought, the failure to comply with the notice requirement would make the subpoena fatally defective (Pavia v 810 Broadway Assocs., supra), and would not be cured by the petitioner’s observation that after service of a noncomplying subpoena "opposing party would have time to exercise its right to seek a protective order.”

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty when the requested evidence is relevant, material and necessary to the litigation.

New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Lexington Insurance · filed 1990-04-05(a)(4)

Upon review of the record, we find that the movants satisfied the requirements for nonparty discovery by establishing the relevance, materiality and necessity of the documents and items demanded from nonparty Westinghouse to the pending litigation.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty disclosure when the reasons and circumstances are inferable from the notice, and a showing of need in response to a motion can cure a deficiency in that notice.

In re the Estate of DeFilippo · filed 1990-12-10(a)(4)

At oral argument, the court ruled that the notice served upon Dr. Abderhalden sufficiently complied with CPLR 3101 (a) (4) in that the reasons and circumstances for the disclosure were clearly discernible/inferable from the nature of the information sought. In any event, any perceived deficiency in the notice was amply rectified by the proponent’s showing of need in response to this motion.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a non-party witness subpoena to contain or be accompanied by a notice stating the circumstances or reasons why disclosure is sought.

Kaufman v. Red Ground Corp. · filed 1991-02-11(a)(4)

In this regard, we note that the original non-party witness subpoena served upon Baron was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]) why disclosure was sought (see, Matter of Yost v Douris, 151 AD2d 489; Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 438).

Section 3101(a) permits a nonparty deposition when the witness has material and relevant information that cannot be obtained from the party or its records.

Jira v. Levin-Epstein · filed 1991-04-01(a)

The plaintiffs utterly failed to establish that the non-party witness possessed information material and relevant to their preparation for the trial of this medical malpractice action, or that whatever information she might possess could not be obtained either from the defendant himself or from his office records (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 345; CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333; Herbst v Bruhn, 106 AD2d 546, 549).

Section 3101(a)(3) permits the deposition of an out-of-state nonparty whose testimony is material and necessary to a defense, with questioning limited to relevant matters.

Gardner v. Slattery-Argrett · filed 1991-10-10(a)(3)

In light of plaintiffs’ claim that the 1984 accident rendered John Gardner totally and permanently disabled, we find that the testimony of Stanley Gardner is material and necessary, and may be taken pursuant to. CPLR 3101 (a) (3), which provides as follows: ... We caution, however, that the deposition should be limited to matters concerning the physical condition of John Gardner, and that this determination is not to be construed as an invitation to the wholesale admission at trial of what defendants-appellants have themselves termed the "gruesome facts” of the alleged assault and any photographic evidence thereof.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty who can provide relevant and material information not readily available from other sources.

Perrotte v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 1991-10-15(a)(4)

Since, in our view, plaintiffs made an adequate showing that the nonparty witness McKesson could provide relevant and material information on issues pertinent at the identification trial, which information is not readily available from other sources, the subpoenas should not have been quashed.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking a non-party deposition to show why it is necessary, including why the information cannot be obtained from other sources.

Smith v. Parrish · filed 1992-03-24(a)(4)

The motion should also be denied for failure to demonstrate circumstances necessitating a non-party deposition (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), in that defendant did not show that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources.

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) permits deposing an expert witness when special circumstances, including the loss or destruction of material physical evidence, warrant it.

Generali Insurance Co. of Trieste & Venice v. Honeywell, Inc. · filed 1993-06-17(d)(1)(iii)

The IAS Court properly determined that no "special circumstances” or conditions existed pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (iii) warranting the deposition of plaintiff’s expert witness in connection with an explosion in the basement of the insured premises, where, as here, the material physical evidence, an allegedly defective gas valve manufactured by defendant Honeywell, which allegedly caused the explosion, had not been "lost or destroyed before the other side has had an opportunity to conduct its own expert inspection” (Rosario v General Motors Corp., 148 AD2d 108, 109).

Section 3101(a)(3) permits a nonparty witness who lives more than 100 miles from trial to be deposed without an additional showing.

Simpson v. K Mart Corp. · filed 1993-06-17(a)(3)

This being so, deposing him as a nonparty witness was specifically authorized without any further showing under CPLR 3101 (a) (3), and compliance with the additional requirements of CPLR 3101 (a) (4) was unnecessary (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 345, at 494 [2d ed]).

Section 3101(d)(1)(i) permits examination before trial of an expert when the party identifies the expert late and fails to produce relevant earnings records.

Thomas v. James Wu & Sons · filed 1993-10-14(d)(1)(i)

Examination before trial of plaintiff’s former employer is warranted in view of plaintiff’s late disclosure of her intent to use him as an expert (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and plaintiff’s failure to submit her tax returns and other documents relating to her earnings from modeling jobs in Europe.

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) requires a showing of special circumstances to depose a treating physician.

Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc. · filed 1993-11-09(d)(1)(iii)

In addition, defendants have failed to demonstrate any "special circumstances” which would support their request to depose plaintiffs treating physician (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) requires special circumstances to depose an expert; conclusory claims of need are insufficient, but a limited deposition may be allowed in a unique factual situation.

Mead v. Benjamin · filed 1994-02-03(d)(1)(iii)

Although the "special circumstances” requirement of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (iii) is more than a nominal barrier to discovery, and mere conclusory allegations that discovery is necessary are insufficient (232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861), courts have been willing to authorize disclosure directly from the expert under this statute (Rosario v General Motors Corp., 148 AD2d 108). In view of the fact that considerable latitude should be given to the trial court, and in light of the unique factual situation presented in the instant case, we find that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing a limited deposition of plaintiff’s expert.

Section 3101(d)(1) permits questioning an expert about the factual basis of an opinion but limits inquiry to matters within the expert’s expertise.

Ayora v. Clemons Properties Partners · filed 1994-03-22(d)(1)

While the court properly proscribed inquiry into the parking lock’s causal relationship to the accident, it should also have proscribed inquiry of this witness, an engineer, into respondent’s connection, link or role in the litigation as not being within his expertise (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure from child eyewitnesses when their testimony is material and necessary; children are not categorically excluded from depositions.

In re Tricia K. · filed 1994-04-15(a)

Further, the court notes that in enacting Family Court Act § 1038 (d) the Legislature did not omit children from the purview of CPLR 3101 (a) and 3102 (a). Without such an exception, those sections indisputedly authorize the deposition of eyewitnesses with respect to the events at issue in a civil lawsuit.

When an expert inspected physical evidence that is no longer available to the other side, special circumstances permit disclosure of the expert’s factual work, but not the expert’s opinion.

Tedesco v. Dry-Vac Sales, Inc. · filed 1994-04-28(d)(1)(iii)

Therefore, Harris is entitled to depose plaintiffs’ expert on the facts, materials, examinations and tests he conducted in rendering his opinion. Nevertheless, the expert’s opinion does not have to be disclosed (see, supra).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty to state the circumstances or reasons the disclosure is sought or required.

Stafano v. MT Health Clubs Inc. · filed 1995-10-24(a)(4)

The subpoenas duces tecum with notice of deposition served on plaintiffs health care providers were facially defective for failure to "stat[e] the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required”, as required by CPLR 3101 (a) (4) (Rickicki v Borden Chem., 195 AD2d 986; Pavia v 810 Broadway Assocs., 130 Mise 2d 1054).

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) requires special circumstances to obtain discovery from a non-party expert witness.

Michalak v. Venticinque · filed 1995-12-22(d)(1)(iii)

Further, a party seeking discovery from a non-party expert witness must show "special circumstances” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).

Section 3101(a)(3) entitles a party to depose an out-of-state physician who examined the opposing party.

Goldblatt v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. · filed 1996-01-29(a)(3)

As the appellants argue, however, they are clearly entitled to depose Dr. Gordon (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [3]), and would be authorized to use his deposition at trial as evidence-in-chief without demonstrating special circumstances or unavailability (see, CPLR 3117 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a child who is a nonparty witness in a child protective proceeding only upon a showing of adequate special circumstances beyond relevance and materiality.

In re the Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. R./S. Children · filed 1996-03-29(a)(4)

Accordingly, the children may be required to give information related to the charges through the provisions of CPLR 3101 (a) (4) for discovery from "any other person.” Under the case law pertaining to discovery from nonparty witnesses, however, the person seeking discovery must establish more than relevance and materiality; there must be a showing of "adequate special circumstances.”

Section 3101(a)(4) permits examination of an inspector when information about the inspector’s qualifications and training is material to a defense and cannot be obtained from offered records.

Calderone v. Levites Realty Management Corp. · filed 1996-06-25(a)(4)

The circumstances warrant defendants’ examination of appellant through the employee who inspected the apartment in question (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3106 [d]), because the information sought relating to the employee’s qualification and training in the operation of the instrument used to test for the presence of lead paint is material and necessary to the defense and cannot be gleaned from appellant’s proffered records.

A subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty must contain or be accompanied by a notice stating the circumstances or reasons the disclosure is required.

Lazzaro v. County of Nassau · filed 1997-06-16(a)(4)

The Supreme Court properly found that the subpoena duces tecum which the defendants served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro, was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 438).

Section 3101(a) permits the court to order a nonparty to provide medical records to a plaintiff.

Pettus v. New York Eye & Ear Infirmary · filed 1997-06-20(a)

... except that nonparty MLK is directed to provide said medical records to the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) within 20 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereon.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty to contain or be accompanied by a notice stating why the disclosure is sought or required.

Knitwork Productions Corp. v. Helfat · filed 1996-12-09(a)(4)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly found that the subpoena duces tecum which the defendants served upon the nonparty Rosenthal & Rosenthal was facially defective and unenforceable because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice setting forth "the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, De Stafano v MT Health Clubs, 220 AD2d 331; Rickicki v Borden Chem., 195 AD2d 986; Kaufman v Red Ground Corp., 170 AD2d 484; Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 153 AD2d 912).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty to state the circumstances or reasons disclosure is sought.

Cooper v. Rheingold · filed 1997-04-22(a)(4)

In addition to the technical deficiencies of plaintiffs subpoena, the most significant of which is the absence of a statement of the circumstances or reasons disclosure is sought (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the settlement information he seeks will be useful in the prosecution of this action against his former attorneys for having settled his Federal court action against nonparty respondent, a distributor of L-tryptophane products in this country, and its parent, a manufacturer of such products, without making a proper investigation or analysis of his particular situation.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a protective order against a nonparty deposition when the requesting party fails to show that the information cannot be obtained from other sources.

Bunkley v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp. · filed 1997-03-17(a)(4)

Even if service of the subpoena was proper, the plaintiffs were entitled to a protective order as the defendants failed to show that the information sought from the plaintiffs’ daughter could not be obtained from other sources (see, Dioguardi v St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333; CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see also, Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031, 1032).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a nonparty examination by subpoena and notice stating the circumstances or reasons disclosure is sought.

Brussels Leasing Limited Partnership v. Henne · filed 1997-10-08(a)(4)

As to the latter, the statutory scheme permits an examination to be noticed by serving upon the witness a subpoena and notice "stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3106 [b]; 3107.)

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty upon notice stating why it is sought; no showing of special circumstances is required.

Schroder v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. · filed 1998-04-09(a)(4)

The motion court erred in requiring a showing of “special circumstances” to warrant the deposition of Dr. Ward. CPLR 3101 (a) (4) provides that there “shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” by a non-party, “upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.”

CPLR 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty disclosure when the requested information is otherwise unobtainable and requires a showing that a proposed deposition would yield information material and necessary to the case.

Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc. · filed 1998-04-13(a)(4)

Nevertheless, pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), the plaintiff is entitled to such nonparty disclosure since he demonstrated that the information sought was otherwise unobtainable (see, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 AD2d 614; see also, Schwarz v Schwarz, 227 AD2d 611). ... The Supreme Court, however, properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to depose his former coworkers, as he has not yet shown that they have information which is “material and necessary” to the prosecution of his case (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see also, Matter of Validation Review Assocs., supra; Anderson v Kamalian, 231 AD2d 659; Adams Light. Corp. v First Cent. Ins. Co., 230 AD2d 757).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty even after that person is dismissed from the action.

Hoag v. Chase Pitkin Home & Garden Center · filed 1998-07-08(a)(4)

In any event, the discovery sought by plaintiffs is not foreclosed by the stipulation. Plaintiffs may still depose a representative of Tilepak and obtain production of documents from Tilepak as a nonparty (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3106 [b]; 3120 [b]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice to a nonparty before the court may compel that person to provide discovery.

Anderson v. Seigel · filed 1998-01-27(a)(4)

Lack of notice pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) is sine qua non a reason for denying this portion of the relief requested.

Section 3101(a)(3) permits disclosure from a nonparty who resides more than 100 miles from the place of trial, even if the person is the opposing party’s treating physician.

Roeck v. Columbia-Greene Medical Center · filed 1998-03-19(a)(3)

Although CPLR 3101 (a) (3) does not allow a party to obtain disclosure as a matter of right from another party’s treating physician (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 345, at 495 [2d ed]; see also, Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334-335; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C310L21, at 31), CPLR 3101 (a) (3) does permit a party to obtain disclosure from a person residing more than 100 miles from the place of trial (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [31) even if the person is also plaintiff’s treating physician (see, Simpson v K Mart Corp., supra, at 966).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of material and necessary information from a nonparty when it cannot be obtained from another source.

Gilroy v. McCarthy · filed 1998-10-13(a)(4)

Finally, the defendants successfully demonstrated that the information sought was material and necessary to their defense of the action (see, Kekis v Park Slope Emergency Physician Serv., 244 AD2d 463), and that the information could not be obtained from another source (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333).

Section 3101(a) requires more than relevance or materiality to obtain disclosure from a nonparty witness; the party seeking disclosure must show that the information cannot be obtained from other sources.

Fraser v. Park Newspapers of St. Lawrence, Inc. · filed 1999-01-28(a)

Moreover, although defendant contends that the requested depositions may lead to other, admissible evidence, including information that may bear upon plaintiffs credibility or his general reputation in the community, something more than mere relevance or materiality must be shown to obtain disclosure from a nonparty witness (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; King v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 748; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). Inasmuch as defendant has not established that it is unable to obtain the information in question from other sources, including the witnesses themselves—they apparently have already voluntarily furnished statements—we are not convinced that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion (see, Jira v Levin-Epstein, 172 AD2d 495; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., supra, at 334-335).

Section 3101(a)(3) permits a party to depose a nonparty physician who attended and treated the plaintiff without showing special circumstances.

Calvao v. St. John's Riverside Hospital · filed 1999-05-03(a)(3)

The nonparty witness Syed M. Shariff was the pediatrician who attended the delivery of the infant plaintiff and treated her from the time of her birth until she was transferred to another hospital. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to depose him and no showing of “special circumstances” was required (CPLR 3101 [a] [3]).

In a child protective proceeding, the child is a nonparty whose deposition is governed by CPLR 3101(a)(4).

In re Crystal AA. · filed 2000-04-13(a)(4)

Since a child is the subject and not a party in a Family Court Act article 10 abuse or neglect proceeding, the child’s deposition is governed by CPLR 3101 (a) (4) which pertains to “any other person.”

Section 3101(a) permits the deposition of a witness whose testimony is material and necessary to a proceeding.

In re the Estate of Sisko · filed 2000-03-06(a)

Before trial, Moser must be afforded the opportunity to depose her uncle Hyman Sisko, the other witness to the will. His testimony is “material and necessary” to the prosecution of the proceeding (see, CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of nonparties’ private information only when the need for disclosure outweighs their privacy interests.

Van Epps v. County of Albany · filed 2000-03-31(a)

Discovery requests that tend to broaden the scope of litigation and intrude upon rights to privacy should not be permitted unless there is a showing that the need for disclosure outweighs the importance of protecting nonparties’ privacy.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a party to seek testimony from a nonparty witness about matters relevant to the case despite discontinuance of a third-party action.

Gonzalez v. United Parcel Service · filed 2000-05-09(a)(4)

Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs assertion, neither the discontinuance of the third-party action nor the court’s pretrial rulings prevented plaintiff from calling the president of his employer as a subpoenaed witness (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; 3106 [b]; 3120 [b]) and examining him with respect to his company’s relationship with defendant, and with respect to the machine alleged to have caused plaintiff’s injury, which machine was owned by his company.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking stored blood samples from nonparties to justify disclosure with scientific or medical evidence connecting the samples to the disputed condition at the relevant time.

Doe v. Merck & Co. · filed 2001-05-21(a)(4)

While truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation (see, Carter v Visconti, 233 AD2d 473), the appellants failed to justify disclosure by establishing through scientific or medical evidence that the stored blood samples, drawn in 1996, would contain evidence that the plaintiff had herpes at the time of the alleged defamation in 1997 (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; L’Hommedieu v L’Hommedieu, 183 AD2d 754, 755; Herbst v Bruhn, 106 AD2d 546, 549-550; Greene v Aberle, 150 Misc 2d 306, 308).

Section 3101(a) requires a party seeking a nonparty deposition to show that the requested information is material and necessary.

Ruthman, Mercadante & Hadjis, P. C. v. Nardiello · filed 2001-11-08(a)

Given the lack of adequate proof that the information sought is “material and necessary” (CPLR 3101 [a]; see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407), we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s discretion.

Section 3101 permits a court to require depositions of parties and nonparty witnesses when the parties previously stipulated to them.

Haggerty v. Charlie's, Inc. · filed 2002-11-25

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in requiring that the plaintiff and certain nonparty witnesses, the plaintiff’s accountant and son, submit to depositions previously stipulated to by the parties (see CPLR 3101; see generally Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of a nonparty contract material and necessary to value appreciation of a spouse’s business interest, even if that spouse transferred the interest during the action.

Chait v. Chait · filed 2002-03-12(a)(4)

Defendant’s transfer of her interest in Gaymar, a closely held family business, during the pendency of this action, in apparent violation of the court’s preexisting order enjoining transfer of marital assets, provides no basis to deny disclosure.

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require a showing of special circumstances to obtain disclosure from a nonparty.

Catalano v. Moreland · filed 2002-11-15(a)(4)

We reject the Hospital’s contention that plaintiffs were required to demonstrate special circumstances before being entitled to disclosure from a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4).

A subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty must contain or be accompanied by a notice stating why the disclosure is sought.

Wolf v. Wolf · filed 2002-12-16(a)(4)

The subpoena duces tecum that was served upon the nonparty appellant was facially invalid and unenforceable, because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice setting forth the reason why such disclosure was sought (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Matter of Ehmer, 272 AD2d 540; Lazzaro v County of Nassau, 240 AD2d 546).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery from a nonparty when the testimony is material and necessary to a party’s claim or defense.

Crespo v. Monterey Associates · filed 2003-02-04(a)

We find that the testimony of Ms. Santiago, with whom plaintiff resided since his cast was removed, is “material and necessary” to plaintiffs physical condition, especially in light of ... plaintiffs own contradictory statements regarding his condition following the accident (see CPLR 3101 [a]; ...).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a nonparty deposition when the witness has information material and necessary to the defense that is otherwise unobtainable.

Thorson v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2003-05-27(a)(4)

The defendant demonstrated that Cortes has information that is material and necessary to the defense of this ... action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and that this information is otherwise unobtainable (see O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526 [1988]; Abbadessa v Sprint, 291 AD2d 363 [2002]; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482 [2001]; Maxwell v Snapper, Inc., 249 AD2d 374 [1998]; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333 [1988]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty witness who has knowledge of material and necessary facts.

Emam v. Boglioli · filed 2004-04-15(a)(4)

The taking of depositions of parties who appear in a civil is accomplished via notification to their respective attorneys. This simple procedural mechanism which is in very common practice, is not available where a pre-trial deposition is required of a non party witness, which in our case would include a defaulting party. The procedure for taking such depositions is considerably more cumbersome and less familiar. See CPLR § 3101(a)(4)Nonetheless, this procedure was available to the defendant, herein and its use would be more solicitous of the integrity of the civil justice system.

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) requires a party seeking to depose a nonparty expert to show special circumstances.

Kaufman v. Lund Fire Products Co. · filed 2004-06-01(d)(1)(iii)

Therefore, because the deposition of a nonparty expert was at issue, the appellant was required to show the existence of special circumstances (see CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. v Providence Wash. Ins. Co., supra; Hallahan v Ashland Chem. Co., 237 AD2d 697 [1997]; Weinberger v Lensclean, Inc., 198 AD2d 58 [1993]; King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 748 [1993]). The appellant satisfied its burden by showing that some of the pieces of equipment examined by American Standards for the respondent were subjected to changes.

Section 3101(d)(1)(iii) treats a deposition of a nonparty treating physician as outside discovery, so the post-note-of-issue showing required for discovery does not apply.

Brandes v. North Shore University Hospital · filed 2005-10-31(d)(1)(iii)

An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances ...justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought, deposition of the nonparty treating physician of the plaintiffs decedent, was not in the nature of discovery (see CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; Jones v Sherpa, 5 AD3d 634 [2004]; Beliavskaia v Perkin, 227 AJD2d 246 [1996]; Hill v Sheehan, 154 AD2d 912 [1989]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice stating why disclosure is sought from a nonparty, including when documents are subpoenaed under CPLR 3120.

Velez v. Hunts Point Multi-Service Center, Inc. · filed 2006-02-09(a)(4)

Accordingly, we now reach the question and hold that the CPLR 3101 (a) (4) notice requirement applicable to subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to CPLR 3111 is equally applicable to nonparty subpoenas issued pursuant to CPLR 3120.

Section 3101(a)(4) allows disclosure from a nonparty when the information sought is material and necessary.

Quevedo v. Eichner · filed 2006-05-02(a)(4)

The plaintiffs demonstrated that the disclosure sought was material and necessary (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and that the information was otherwise unobtainable (see Koramblyum v Medvedovsky, 19 AD3d 651 [2005]; Thorson v New York City Tr. Auth., 305 AD2d 666 [2003]; Maxwell v Snapper, Inc., 249 AD 2d 374 [1998]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a showing that the information sought is relevant or that circumstances warrant discovery from a nonparty.

Lutz v. Goldstone · filed 2006-07-05(a)(4)

...to quash the subpoenas served upon him by the father, since the father failed to show that the information sought was relevant, or that circumstances existed warranting discovery from a nonparty witness (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

CPLR 3101(a)(4) requires a showing of circumstances warranting discovery from nonparty witnesses.

Smith v. Moore · filed 2006-07-18(a)(4)

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to show that circumstances existed warranting discovery from nonparty witnesses (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449 [2006]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty subpoena to state why disclosure is sought; a subpoena without that notice is invalid and unenforceable.

Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C. · filed 2006-07-25(a)(4)

The subpoenas were “facially invalid and unenforceable, because they neither contained, nor were accompanied by, a notice setting forth the reason why such disclosure was sought (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Matter of Ehmer, 272 AD2d 540; Lazzaro v County of Nassau, 240 AD2d 546).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a court to require a subpoenaed parent to attend a child’s physical examination to provide consent and necessary medical history.

J.G. v. Zachman · filed 2006-11-17(a)(4)

Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte ordering that a parent of plaintiffs, if subpoenaed, attend the physical examinations of plaintiffs for the limited purpose of consenting to the examinations and providing necessary medical history (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

CPLR 3101(a)(4)’s requirement to state the circumstances or reasons for nonparty disclosure can be satisfied by information supplied in response to a motion to quash.

Hauzinger v. Hauzinger · filed 2007-09-28(a)(4)

Even assuming, arguendo, that the subpoena and accompanying notice did not advise appellant of the “circumstances or reasons such disclosure [was] sought or required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), we conclude that defendant’s response to appellant’s motion provided the requisite information (see Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 111 [2006]).

Section 3101 (a) (4) requires a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness to state the circumstances or reasons warranting it.

Tenore v. Tenore · filed 2007-11-07(a)(4)

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) must state the “circumstances or reasons” warranting discovery from such nonparty witness (see Smith v Moore, 31 AD3d 628 [2006]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450-451 [2006]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice with a nonparty subpoena, but a court may allow omitted notice to be corrected when the nonparty suffers no apparent prejudice.

Hélie v. McDermott · filed 2007-12-17(a)(4)

As a threshold matter, the court rejects Gramercy’s argument that the motion should be denied because the subpoena lacked the notice required under CPLR 3101 (a) (4). A court may permit the omitted notice to be corrected in the absence of any apparent prejudice to the nonparty served.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty when the information sought is material and relevant to issues in the action.

Dana Distributors, Inc. v. Crown Imports, LLC · filed 2008-06-03(a)(4)

The affidavit of Manhattan’s chief operating officer demonstrated, inter alia, that the information sought was both very limited in scope, and material and relevant to issues in the action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042 [1993]; O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521 [1988]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of material and necessary information from a nonparty upon notice stating why it is sought.

Burnett v. Paul · filed 2008-06-03(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), “[tjhere shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . . . any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” Here, the subject disclosure should have been permitted. The respondent’s letter expressly contradicts the Town’s denial that it possessed any records regarding the alleged defect.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a showing of special circumstances and a court order to obtain disclosure from a nonparty in a permanency proceeding.

In re John H. · filed 2008-11-20(a)(4)

This agency was not a party to the proceeding and the Law Guardian failed to show any special circumstances requiring disclosure from it, rendering service of the notice without a court order ineffectual (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Cerasaro v Cerasaro, 9 AD3d 663, 665 [2004]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a sufficient showing to obtain disclosure from a nonparty.

Step-Murphy v. B&B Brothers Real Estate Corp. · filed 2009-03-17(a)(4)

The defendant failed to make a showing sufficient to warrant disclosure from a nonparty (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Tenore v Tenore, 45 AD3d 571 [2007]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449 [2006]).

A subpoena seeking disclosure under section 3101(a)(4) is facially defective if it neither contains nor is accompanied by a notice stating why disclosure is required.

American Express Property Casualty Co. v. Vinci · filed 2009-06-23(a)(4)

Further, the Supreme Court properly determined that the subpoena duces tecum served by the appellant was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the “circumstances or reasons such disclosure is . . . required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see Wolf v Wolf, 300 AD2d 473 [2002]; Lazzaro v County of Nassau, 240 AD2d 546 [1997]; Knitwork Prods. Corp. v Helfat, 234 AD2d 345 [1996]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty to state why it is sought and demonstrate that the information is otherwise unobtainable.

Morganti v. Morganti · filed 2010-04-06(a)(4)

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness must “ state [ ] the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and demonstrate that the information was otherwise unobtainable (see O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526 [1988]; Koramblyum v Medvedovsky, 19 AD3d 651 [2005]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty to show that the information is material and necessary and to explain why it is sought from the nonparty.

Kondratick v. Orthodox Church in America · filed 2010-05-04(a)(4)

Here, the Orthodox Church in America (hereinafter the appellant) satisfied this requirement. In light of the claims made by the plaintiff in action No. 1, the information sought in the subpoenas by the appellant is relevant, material, and necessary, and unavailable through other means.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice stating the circumstances or reasons for seeking nonparty disclosure; a subpoena lacking that notice is facially defective and unenforceable.

Hernandez v. Mueller · filed 2010-08-16(a)(4)

Further, CPLR 3101 permits disclosure from a nonparty “upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]). A subpoena “served on a nonparty is ‘facially defective’ and unenforceable if it neither contains, nor is accompanied by, a notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” (See Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 13 [2d Dept 2010], quoting Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2d Dept 2009].) ... In sum, the deposition subpoena dated February 12, 2010 was defective on its face in substantial respects, and this court will not directly enforce it.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires more than relevance or materiality for challenged disclosure from a nonparty; the requester must show why the information cannot be obtained elsewhere or is otherwise necessary to prepare for trial.

Troy Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Nassau · filed 2010-12-16(a)(4)

Imposition of the “material and necessary” standard to all individuals, regardless of their status, would render the distinction drawn in the statute between parties and nonparties meaningless. ... Even assuming that petitioners made a showing of relevancy, they failed to demonstrate that they could not otherwise obtain the information sought from Bader regarding whether town officials asked her permission before using her property to access the site of the proposed quarry.

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require special circumstances for nonparty discovery; courts assess the stated circumstances and reasons when a subpoena is challenged.

Kooper v. Kooper · filed 2010-05-11(a)(4)

On a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum or for a protective order, in assessing whether the circumstances or reasons for a particular demand warrant discovery from a nonparty, those circumstances and reasons need not be shown to be “special circumstances.”

Section 3101(a)(3) and (4) does not require a physician’s deposition when the information sought is available from another source.

Bernard v. Brookfield Properties Corp. · filed 2011-08-18(a)(3), (4)

Because the information sought from Dr. Sanborn is available from another source, we agree with the motion court that Dr. Sanborn’s deposition should not be compelled (see Ramsey v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 14 AD3d 349 [2005]; CPLR 3101 [a] [3], [4]).

A subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty is subject to being quashed if it lacks an affirmation setting forth the language required by CPLR 3101(a)(4).

Needleman v. Tornheim · filed 2011-10-11(a)(4)

Additionally, the subpoena was facially defective and subject to being quashed because it neither contained nor was accompanied by an affirmation setting forth the language mandated by CPLR 3101 (a) (4) (see Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 13 [2010]; Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2009]; Wolf v Wolf, 300 AD 2d 473 [2002]; Knitwork Prods. Corp. v Helfat, 234 AD2d 345, 346 [1996]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty when the information is material and necessary and cannot be obtained from other sources or is otherwise necessary to prepare for trial.

Vorys v. Camp Menawa, LLC · filed 2012-01-19(a)(4)

Inasmuch as plaintiff did not establish that the information sought from the nonparty witnesses could not be obtained from other sources, we are unwilling to conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion (see Caruso v Northeast Emergency Med. Assoc., PC., 85 AD3d 1502, 1506 [2011]; Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Nassau, 80 AD3d at 202-203).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty when the information sought is relevant, material, and necessary to the defense.

Jacobs v. Johnston · filed 2012-07-05(a)(4)

In opposition to the plaintiff’s cross motion to quash the subpoena served by the defendant upon the nonparty witness, the defendant demonstrated, inter alia, that the disclosure ...sought was relevant, material, and necessary to the defense of the action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; ...).

Section 3101(a)(4) gives the trial court discretion to refuse to compel disclosure from a nonparty.

CHAMBERLAIN, D'AMANDA, OPPENHEIMBER, GREENFIELD, LLP v. WILSON, REBECCA P. · filed 2012-12-21(a)(4)

While we conclude that the Court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances of this case by refusing to compel disclosure from defendant’s ex-husband (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; cf. CPLR 3101 [a] [1]), we do agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion by conditioning disclosure from her ex-husband’s attorney “upon defendant supplying [the attorney] with a stipulation not to seek re-opening [of] any aspect of the divorce, within five (5) days of this Order.”

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty when the material is necessary to the case and sufficient independent evidence is unavailable.

American Heritage Realty LLC v. Strathmore Insurance · filed 2012-12-27(a)(4)

In our view, the documents are relevant to both Marks’ credibility and defendant’s claim that plaintiff did not sustain a loss as a result of hail damage during the relevant policy period. Moreover, sufficient independent evidence is not obtainable.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice stating why disclosure is sought from a nonparty; notice may be sufficient when it provides basic information about the litigation and the nonparty does not object.

In re Aerco International, Inc. · filed 2013-05-16(a)(4)

However, considering the specific notice provided here by Precision to the nonparty, and the fact that the nonparty has submitted no objection to the subpoena, the court finds Precision has sufficiently satisfied the notice requirements as required by CPLR 3101 (a) (4).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty to show that it is material and necessary and to explain why it is sought from that witness.

Dicenso v. Wallin · filed 2013-08-14(a)(4)

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness must demonstrate that the disclosure sought is material and necessary, and must set forth the “circumstances or reasons” why disclosure is “sought or required” from such nonparty witness (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 10, 17 [2010]; Kondratick v Orthodox Church in Am., 73 AD3d 708, 708-709 [2010]; Tenore v Tenore, 45 AD3d 571 [2007]).

A nonparty waives an objection to the adequacy of disclosure notice by failing to raise it in opposition to the motion, and the court may not deny the motion on that ground sua sponte.

McNeill v. Town of Islip · filed 2013-12-04(a)(4)

Cheryl McNeill waived any objection to the adequacy of notice by failing to assert that ground in opposition to the County’s motion (see Benson Park Assoc. LLC v Herman, 93 AD3d 609, 609 [2012]; cf. Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 13-14 [2010]; Yihye v Blumenberg, 260 AD2d 371, 371-372 [1999]; People ex rel. Golden v Golden, 57 AD2d 807, 807 [1977]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have sua sponte raised the issue of notice and denied the motion on the ground of inadequate notice (cf. Dupps v Betancourt, 99 AD3d 855, 856 [2012]; Matter of Mandala v Jablonsky, 242 AD2d 271, 272 [1997]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty to show that the material is material and necessary and to state why disclosure is sought from that nonparty.

Reid v. Soults · filed 2014-02-26(a)(4)

In addition, a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty must set forth the “circumstances or reasons” why disclosure is “sought or required” from such nonparty witness (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see Dicenso v Wallin, 109 AD3d 508, 509 [2013]). ... Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have examined the subject videotape compilation, in camera, prior to making its determination (see id.).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty without requiring the subpoenaing party to show that the information cannot be obtained from another source.

Smile Train, Inc. v. Ferris Consulting Corp. · filed 2014-05-27(a)(4)

The Court of Appeals has rejected the argument “that CPLR 3101 (a) contains distinctions between disclosure required of parties and nonparties” (id. at *3) and has said that CPLR “3101 (a) (4) imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source” (id. at *5). ... However, in light of Kapon, plaintiff is entitled to discovery from Mullaney about defendants’ allegedly poor performance of their contract with plaintiff prior to Mullaney’s resignation as plaintiffs president in late October 2010.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires disclosure of relevant material from nonparties after notice stating the circumstances or reasons for the request, without requiring proof that the material cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Kapon v. Koch · filed 2014-04-03(a)(4)

Section 3101 (a) (4) imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty discovery when the information sought is material and necessary because it is relevant to prosecuting the plaintiff's claims.

Peters v. Peters · filed 2014-06-19(a)(4)

In light of the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that the discovery sought by way of the subject subpoenas is “material and necessary” under CPLR 3101 (a) (4) insofar as it is relevant to the prosecution of plaintiffs claims (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty possessing material and necessary evidence when the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure.

Ferolito v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC · filed 2014-07-09(a)(4)

CPLR 3101 (a) is to be liberally construed “to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons” requiring disclosure.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires that a nonparty subpoena recipient have sufficient notice of the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena request.

Nacos v. Nacos · filed 2015-01-15(a)(4)

Appellants had sufficient notice of the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena request (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and they failed to establish that the correspondence sought is “utterly irrelevant” to the divorce action (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty possessing material and necessary evidence when the nonparty is told the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure.

Bianchi v. Galster Management Corp. · filed 2015-08-19(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoenaing party seeking nonparty discovery to state the circumstances or reasons supporting disclosure.

In re the Estate of Nunz · filed 2015-08-24(a)(4)

With nonparty discovery, CPLR 3101 (a) (4) requires that a subpoenaing party sufficiently state the “circumstances or reasons” which support disclosure from the nonparty, “either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it” (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 39 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoenaing party seeking disclosure from a nonparty to state the circumstances or reasons for the disclosure.

Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C. v. USAA Casualty Insurance · filed 2015-09-11(a)(4)

CPLR 3101 (a) (4) also contains a notice requirement with regard to nonparties, wherein the subpoenaing party must first state either on the face of the subpoena, or in a notice accompanying it, “the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d at 34).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice of the circumstances or reasons for a nonparty subpoena and permits disclosure unless the requested records are utterly irrelevant.

Harold Levinson Associates, Inc. v. Wong · filed 2015-05-21(a)(4)

Defendants failed to establish that the records sought were “utterly irrelevant” to the instant action (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34 [2014]), and they had sufficient notice of “the circumstances or reasons” underlying the subpoena request (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see Nacos v Nacos, 124 AD3d 462, 463 [1st Dept 2015]).

CPLR 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty subpoena to state the circumstances and reasons for the disclosure sought, giving the nonparty enough information to challenge it.

TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC · filed 2016-10-19(a)(4)

Contrary to Lawrence’s contention, the subpoenas at issue satisfied the notice requirement of CPLR 3101 (a) (4), as they contained the circumstances and reasons the disclosure ... was sought, providing the nonparties with ample information to challenge the subpoenas duces tecum (see Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty of matter material and necessary to an action.

Snow v. DePaul Adult Care Communities, Inc. · filed 2017-04-28(a)(4)

CPLR 3101 (a) (4) allows a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty, and provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” ... Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, we conclude that defendant met its burden with respect to all but the seven documents in the file of the prosecution’s expert.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty when the nonparty receives proper notice and the motion explains why the requested material is material and necessary.

Smith v. Watson · filed 2017-05-11(a)(4)

Initially, NYPD was properly provided notice of defendants’ motion to compel, as demonstrated by the affirmation of service contained in the record, and because the motion to compel stated the “circumstances or reasons” that their discovery requests were “material and necessary” to defend against plaintiffs’ action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34, 36-38 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice explaining the circumstances or reasons for seeking disclosure from a nonparty; motion papers can satisfy that requirement.

Alumil Fabrication, Inc. v. F.A. Alpine Window Manufacturing Co. · filed 2017-06-07(a)(4)

The defendant satisfied the notice requirement by serving the plaintiffs counsel with its motion papers, which properly provided the circumstances or reasons requiring the deposition of that nonparty (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery of material and necessary information from a nonparty when the nonparty is told why disclosure is sought.

Hudson City Savings Bank v. 59 Sands Point, LLC · filed 2017-08-09(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty of “matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” in possession of the nonparty, as long as the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a party to obtain relevant testimony from a nonparty when the subpoena states the circumstances or reasons for seeking disclosure.

DiBuono v. Abbey, LLC · filed 2018-07-05(a)(4)

Here, the C & M defendants satisfied the notice requirement of CPLR 3101(a)(4) by serving Liebowitz with a subpoena that listed the "circumstances or reasons" for the deposition ( see Ferolito v Arizona Beverages USA, LLC , 119 AD3d 642, 643). Furthermore, the C & M defendants demonstrated that the deposition testimony was relevant to the defense of the action and to the prosecution of their cross claims ( see Alumil Fabrication, Inc. v F.A. Alpine Window Mfg. Corp. , 151 AD3d 667, 668).

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty must explain the circumstances or reasons requiring it on the subpoena or in accompanying material.

Gandham v. Gandham · filed 2019-03-20(a)(4)

However, we agree with the court's determination that the subpoenas were defective since, among other things, the defendant failed to provide the nonparty with the required explanation of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure either on the face of the subpoenas or in any accompanying material ( see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Needleman v Tornheim , 88 AD3d 773, 774).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty whose testimony may be relevant, even if the witness lacks personal knowledge of the underlying claims or policies.

Matter of Barber v. BorgWarner, Inc. · filed 2019-07-31(a)(4)

"CPLR 3101 (a) (4) allows a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty, and provides that [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof' " ( Snow v DePaul Adult Care Communities, Inc ., 149 AD3d 1573, 1574 [4th Dept 2017]). ... In any event, even if petitioner lacks personal knowledge of the underlying claims, policies or insureds, her deposition testimony is still potentially relevant because she has personal knowledge of how International interpreted and enforced similar "consent" provisions of other excess policies while she was employed by International.

Section 3101(a)(4) gives a party the right to obtain relevant and necessary information from a nonparty for its claims or defenses.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Confino · filed 2019-08-07(a)(4)

Moreover, the Frankels demonstrated that Satran's conduct prejudiced their right under CPLR 3101(a)(4) to obtain all information relevant and necessary to their defense of the present action and their cross claims against the Confinos ( see Barkan v Barkan , 271 AD2d 466; Kaywood v Cigpak, Inc. , 258 AD2d 623; Yeshiva Tifferes Torah v Kesher Intl. Trading Corp. , 246 AD2d 538).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty with material and necessary evidence when the nonparty is told why disclosure is sought.

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc. · filed 2019-12-24(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure ( see DiBuono v Abbey, LLC , 163 AD3d 524, 525; Bianchi v Galster Mgt. Corp. , 131 AD3d 558, 559).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty to provide relevant disclosure without requiring the requesting party to show that the information is unavailable from another source.

Matter of Grover S. (Jonathan H.G.--Galt N.) · filed 2019-10-09(a)(4)

CPLR 3101(a)(4) imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source. As long as the disclosure sought is relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action, it must be provided by the nonparty ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d at 38).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena for documents from a nonparty to give sufficient notice of why the documents are relevant.

Kaiafas v. Ammos NYC LLC · filed 2020-01-02(a)(4)

Plaintiff's proposed modified subpoena requesting specified bank documents from defendants' nonparty bank contained sufficient language to afford the bank requisite notice of the relevance underlying the document request ( see generally CPLR 3101[a][4]; Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty when the requested material is necessary to an action and the nonparty is told why disclosure is sought.

Islip Theaters, LLC v. Landmark Plaza Props. Corp. · filed 2020-05-27(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty of "matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" in possession of the nonparty, as long as the nonparty is apprised of the reasons such disclosure is sought. ... Here, the plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing that evidence regarding H2M's supervision of the installation of a new roof pursuant to the stipulation of settlement was utterly irrelevant to the remaining issues in this action and, in opposition, the landlord failed to establish that the requested disclosure was material and necessary to its defense of the action ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d at 34; Hudson City Sav. Bank v 59 Sands Point, LLC , 153 AD3d at 613).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of nonparty documents that are material and necessary to an action; documents meeting that standard must be produced when no privilege or work-product protection applies.

Impellizzeri v. Campagni · filed 2020-06-12(a)(4)

Plaintiff met his burden on the cross motion by establishing that those documents were "material and necessary" for the prosecution of his action (CPLR 3101 [a]; see John Mezzalingua Assoc., LLC v Travelers Indem. Co. , 178 AD3d 1413, 1415 [4th Dept 2019]), and defendant and Upstate did not establish that those documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or constituted attorney work product ( see generally Forman v Henkin , 30 NY3d 656, 662 [2018]). We therefore conclude that those documents should be disclosed to plaintiff ( see CPLR 3101 [a], [b], [c]; 4503 [a]; Colantonio v Mercy Med. Ctr. , 102 AD3d 649, 650 [2d Dept 2013]).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a subpoena seeking nonparty testimony to explain the circumstances or reasons for the disclosure, either in the subpoena or in accompanying material.

Capacity Group of NY, LLC v. Duni · filed 2020-09-23(a)(4)

Furthermore, the subpoenas seeking the testimony of numerous nonparties were defective, since the plaintiff failed to provide the nonparties with a sufficient explanation of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure either on the face of the subpoenas or in any accompanying material ( see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 39; Gandham v Gandham , 170 AD3d 964, 966; Needleman v Tornheim , 88 AD3d 773, 774).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of nonparty physicians’ compensation records when they may reveal bias or interest.

Loiselle v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-11-05(a)(4)

The CPLR extends "full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" to nonparties (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 36 [2014]). ... Given the liberal interpretation afforded the terms "material and necessary" used in the CPLR ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d at 38), and the general acceptance of testing a witness for bias and interest ( see generally Salm v Moses , 13 NY3d 816, 818 [2009]), we thus find that the financial records are discoverable.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty, and its material-and-necessary standard is interpreted liberally to include facts bearing on the controversy.

M&T Bank Corp. v. Moody's Invs. Servs., Inc. · filed 2021-02-05(a)(4)

The phrase "material and necessary" in CPLR 3101 "must 'be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity' " ( Kapon , 23 NY3d at 38, quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co. , 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see Barber , 174 AD3d at 1378).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires the subpoenaing party to inform a nonparty why disclosure is sought; the person resisting disclosure then bears the burden of showing futility or irrelevance.

Reda v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. · filed 2020-11-25(a)(4)

Under that statute, the party who served the subpoena has an initial minimal obligation to show that the nonparty was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that the disclosure is sought, and once that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person resisting the subpoena to establish the inevitability or obviousness of the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate or that the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 38-39). In this case, the defendants established that they provided the subpoenaed nonparty treating physicians with adequate notice of the circumstances or reasons requiring the disclosure, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to establish that the disclosure sought was irrelevant to the action, which the plaintiff failed to sustain ( see Bianchi v Galstar Mgt. Corp. , 131 AD3d 558).

CPLR 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty discovery of information material and necessary to pending cross claims, even when those claims are unrelated to the main action.

Feiger v. Ray Enters., LLC · filed 2021-06-03(a)(4)

As the requested information is relevant to the pending cross claims, they could be properly subpoenaed. Thus, we remand the matter for discovery to the extent the requested information is "material and necessary" to the cross claims (CPLR 3101[a][4]; Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a party to seek materials necessary to prosecute or defend an action from a nonparty through a subpoena.

Seddon v. Postigo · filed 2021-06-17(a)(4)

We note that a party may seek to compel the disclosure of materials necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action that belong to a nonparty, however, through the issuance of a subpoena ( see Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc. , 29 AD3d 104, 109 [1st Dept 2006]; see generally CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of relevant and necessary information from a nonparty, but a party seeking contempt for noncompliance must show that the failure to disclose prejudiced that right.

Bongiorno v. Di Frisco · filed 2021-07-07(a)(4)

Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Victor's alleged violation of the subpoena prejudiced the [*2]plaintiff's rights under CPLR 3101(a)(4) to obtain all information relevant and necessary to establish his claim in the present action.

A subpoena seeking disclosure from a nonparty must tell the nonparty why the disclosure is sought.

Elavon, Inc. v. Meyer · filed 2022-03-23(a)(4)

Further, the subpoena failed to apprise Verizon of "the reasons such disclosure [was] sought" ( Islip Theaters, LLC v Landmark Plaza Props. Corp. , 183 AD3d at 876).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty of matter material and necessary to an action when the nonparty is told why disclosure is sought.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Carter · filed 2022-04-06(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty of "matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" in possession of a nonparty, providing the nonparty is apprised of the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required."

Section 3101(a)(4) requires adequate notice of why disclosure is sought from a nonparty; once notice is given, the nonparty seeking to quash the subpoena must show that the disclosure is irrelevant.

Nunez v. Peikarian · filed 2022-08-17(a)(4)

Here, the plaintiff established that he provided Bijari with adequate notice of the circumstances or reason requiring the disclosure, shifting the burden to Bijari to establish that the disclosure sought was irrelevant to the action.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires notice of the circumstances and reasons for a nonparty subpoena; an explanation in opposition to a petition to quash can satisfy that requirement.

Matter of Madison Sq. Garden Entertainment Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth. · filed 2023-11-28(a)(4)

That SLA's opposition to the petition to quash satisfied the otherwise mandatory requirement to provide "notice" of the circumstances and reasons for the subpoena "on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it" ( Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc. , 29 AD3d 104, 111 [1st Dept 2006], citing CPLR 3101[a][4]), is unavailing.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery from a nonparty of matter material and necessary to a claim or defense, but does not permit subpoenas for utterly irrelevant records.

UKI Freedom LLC v. Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc. · filed 2024-01-25(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty of "matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" in possession of a nonparty. ... As such, the documents ODFFU seeks through these non-party subpoenas are "utterly irrelevant" to the instant action ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Confino , 175 AD3d at 534-53).

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require a party subpoenaing a nonparty to show that the requested disclosure cannot be obtained from another source.

CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v. CWCapital Invs. LLC · filed 2024-04-30(a)(4)

At any rate, "[s]ection 3101(a)(4) imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source" ( Kapon , 23 NY3d at 38).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure from a nonparty with material and necessary evidence if the nonparty is told why disclosure is required.

Maraj v. Polevich · filed 2024-06-11(a)(4)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure ( see DiBuono v Abbey, LLC , 163 AD3d 524 [2d Dept 2018]). ... Based upon the papers presented herewith, this Court finds that the statements made and attributed to Ms. Minaj, the plaintiff's daughter, pertaining to Robert's purported domestic abuse of the plaintiff, are directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim for loss of services as asserted in the complaint.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty subpoena to explain why disclosure is sought; a general statement that the person has relevant information does not give sufficient notice.

Pira v. Pira · filed 2024-07-10(a)(4)

While the subpoena in its current form is facially deficient, and Defendant has met his burden to establish this in accordance with CPLR § 3101 (a) (4), the Court does not agree with Defendant's argument that the discovery sought is "utterly irrelevant" to the instant action.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty subpoena to give notice of why disclosure is sought; once sufficient notice is given, the nonparty bears the initial burden to show the requested documents are irrelevant.

Fiallos v. Triboro Scaffolding · filed 2024-10-09(a)(4)

Since Petitioner met the minimal notice requirement under CPLR § 3101 (a)(4), the burden shifts to Respondent to establish that the documents sought are irrelevant to this action.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits discovery of a nonparty’s personal knowledge when it is material and necessary to the action and no privilege or other exemption has been established.

Coads v. Nassau County · filed 2024-10-11(a)(4)

Tseytlin's public testimony demonstrates that his and Trende's personal knowledge was material and necessary within the meaning of CPLR 3101 ( see Alumil Fabrication, Inc. v F.A. Alpine Window Mfg. Corp. , 151 AD3d 667, 668), and the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the testimony and documents sought in the subpoenas were privileged or otherwise exempt from discovery ( see Wasserman v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. , 193 AD3d at 798; Klein Varble & Assoc., P.C. v DeCrescenzo , 119 AD3d 655, 655).