Megan Holding, LLC v Conason

Annotate this Case
[*1] Megan Holding, LLC v Conason 2014 NY Slip Op 51207(U) Decided on August 11, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 11, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan,JJ.
570530/11

Megan Holding, LLC Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Julie Conason and Geoffrey Bryant, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents,

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra R. Samuels, J.), dated December 19, 2013, which denied its motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon it by tenants.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Debra R. Samuels, J.), dated December 19, 2013, dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The landlord's appeal from the order denying its motion to quash the subpoenas duces tecum served upon it by tenants has been rendered academic. The email correspondence and sworn affirmation submitted by tenants' counsel in connection with the parties' prior motion practice before this Court, of which we take judicial notice (see Vasquez v Christian Herald Assn., 186 AD2d 467, 468 [1992], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 783 [1993]), reflect both that tenants withdrew the disputed subpoenas on January 12, 2014, and unequivocally averred that they would not re-serve the subpoenas for to do so would constitute "frivolous" conduct. In this posture, any determination by this Court will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this controversy (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714 [1980]; see also Ayre v Ayre, 29 AD3d 500 [2006]). Nor do the circumstances presented warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I Concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: August 11, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.