No. 15 The following papers numbered E420 to E627 were read on the motion of Robert D. Werth, Esq. for leave to be relieved as co-counsel for plaintiff.

Answering Affidavit............... ccc ecc eee ee eee ne ene ne ene en esac te eeeenseneeeeees E626 to E627 Upon the foregoing papers, the motion of Robert D. Werth, Esq. for leave to be relieved as co-counselfor plaintiff is decided as follows: Defendants opposethis application solely to the extent that a stay should not be imposed as movantis solely “of-counsel” and not the attorney of record.

Therecord reflects that plaintiff's summons and complaint wasfiled by plaintiff's counsel, Law Offices of Amy Y. Chen, PLLC.

and that movant, Robert D. Werth, Esq.filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel on April 8, 2022.

As such, movant’s Order to Show Causeis granted to the extent that Robert D. Werth, Esq. is hereby relieved as co-counsel.

Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits......... Answering Affidavit......0...0..... cece eee ee ences Papers Numbered E371 to E385 E409 to E413 Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff's Order to Show Causeto quash andfora protective order is determined as follows: Plaintiff commencedthis action against the defendantsarising out of an alleged investment of $1,200,000.00 madein a project converting a building located at 136-46 41st Avenue, Flushing, New Yorkinto the Flushing Highline Condominium.

“Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court.” (Moralesv Zherka, 140 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2016].)

“A person other than one to whom a subpoenais directed has standing to move to quash the subpoena whereheor she has a proprietary interest in the subject documents or where they involve privileged communications.” (Matter of Hyatt v State Franchise Tax Bd., 105 AD3d 186 [2d Dept 2013].)

However,at this juncture, the Court finds that defendant’s demand for bank accountrecords of the nonparties for six months preceding any paymentis overly broad and unduly burdensometo the extent that it has not been demonstrated that the origin of funds of the nonparties are pertinent to any aspectofthis litigation when the dispute concernsthe origins of funds of plaintiff's purported investment.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, plaintiff's order to show cause to quash and for a protective orderis granted solely to the extent that the nonparties subpoenaed need not respond to the subpoenasection “ii” demanding “[rJecords relating to the source of monies invested in Lucky House and/or HYD LLC,including butnotlimited to, statements of account for the six (6) months preceding any payments made to Lucky House or HYD LLCfor accounts from which such payments were made.” Defendant Dongis otherwise permitted to re-issue subpoenas to the nonparties from whom the remaining materials were sought.

Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits......... Answering Affidavit......0...0..... cece eee ee ences Papers Numbered E371 to E385 E409 to E413 Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff's Order to Show Causeto quash andfora protective order is determined as follows: Plaintiff commencedthis action against the defendantsarising out of an alleged investment of $1,200,000.00 madein a project converting a building located at 136-46 41st Avenue, Flushing, New Yorkinto the Flushing Highline Condominium.

“Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court.” (Moralesv Zherka, 140 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2016].)

“A person other than one to whom a subpoenais directed has standing to move to quash the subpoena whereheor she has a proprietary interest in the subject documents or where they involve privileged communications.” (Matter of Hyatt v State Franchise Tax Bd., 105 AD3d 186 [2d Dept 2013].)

However,at this juncture, the Court finds that defendant’s demand for bank accountrecords of the nonparties for six months preceding any paymentis overly broad and unduly burdensometo the extent that it has not been demonstrated that the origin of funds of the nonparties are pertinent to any aspectofthis litigation when the dispute concernsthe origins of funds of plaintiff's purported investment.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, plaintiff's order to show cause to quash and for a protective orderis granted solely to the extent that the nonparties subpoenaed need not respond to the subpoenasection “ii” demanding “[rJecords relating to the source of monies invested in Lucky House and/or HYD LLC,including butnotlimited to, statements of account for the six (6) months preceding any payments made to Lucky House or HYD LLCfor accounts from which such payments were made.” Defendant Dongis otherwise permitted to re-issue subpoenas to the nonparties from whom the remaining materials were sought.