The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting Cestone's and Conners's motions for a protective order precluding defendant from compelling them to answer document demands and interrogatories. The record shows that defendant never filed a third-party summons and complaint with the clerk of the court and never paid a separate index number fee, and he never served Conners with a third-party summons (see CPLR 1007; Rosenblum v 170 W. Vil. Assoc.,...
Let's get started

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.