Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd.

Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd. 2011 NY Slip Op 00256 Decided on January 18, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 18, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Acosta, JJ.
4065 118316/06

[*1]In re Meryl Brodsky, Petitioner-Appellant, Mark Feinsot, et al., Petitioners,

v

New York City Campaign Finance Board, Respondent-Respondent.




Meryl Brodsky, appellant pro se.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A.
Colley of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 16, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent's motion to compel petitioner Meryl Brodsky to completely and accurately respond to an information subpoena and questionnaire (CPLR 5224), and denied said petitioner's cross motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the underlying judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 31, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner waived her objection to Supreme Court's jurisdiction over her by failing to raise it in her opposition to respondent's motion (see CPLR 3211[e]; Matter of United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Kungel, 72 AD3d 517, 518 [2010]).

Petitioner has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment in connection with which the information subpoena was served.

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 18, 2011

CLERK