troubled11
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NYS
QUESTION: Could a party serving a Subpoena for Deposition be disqualified to take the deposition pursuant to CPLR sec 3115(c) because he served an invalid subpoena (and the reason for its being invalid is that it has factual errors and because a subpoena for interrogatories has already been served, and pursuant to CPLR sec 3130(1) a party cannot take deposition and serve interrogatories on the same party without leave of court). If yes, how do I make that objection?
BACKGROUND HISTORY: I was Administrator of my dad's estate, and I signed a $300,000 Administrator's Bond Application (arranged by the lawyer who was handling the estate without a contract). As time went by, I felt that the case was dragging too long without resolution, so I settled with my brother about distribution of the estate. The lawyer said that I had no right to settle because he could get me more and then his legal fee would be more. So he sent me a bill for $150,000.
When I refused to pay, he got the Surrogate Court's approval of his fee, got a judgment, served a subpoena on me for interrogatories, and then filed Restraining Notices and began garnishing my money. Since he could not garnish more than $30,000, he got the Bonding Company to pay him the remainder and assigned them the judgment.
So now the Bonding Company's lawyer has served this subpoena for deposition, but he does not say that he is representing the Bonding Company and does not say that the judgment was partially satisfied by garnishing and fully satisfied by Bonding Company payment. He just refers to the original amount of the judgment and the original creditor. Also he does not mention the assignment of the judgment to the Bonding Company. And for some reason, he is saying that this was due to action in the Supreme Court (instead of Surrogate's Court). Is it possible that the Surrogate's Court lacked jurdisdiction to approve a judment for over $25,000?
Since the Bonding Company is misrepresenting and withholding factual information, I am wondering whether they have a right to go after me.
QUESTION: Could a party serving a Subpoena for Deposition be disqualified to take the deposition pursuant to CPLR sec 3115(c) because he served an invalid subpoena (and the reason for its being invalid is that it has factual errors and because a subpoena for interrogatories has already been served, and pursuant to CPLR sec 3130(1) a party cannot take deposition and serve interrogatories on the same party without leave of court). If yes, how do I make that objection?
BACKGROUND HISTORY: I was Administrator of my dad's estate, and I signed a $300,000 Administrator's Bond Application (arranged by the lawyer who was handling the estate without a contract). As time went by, I felt that the case was dragging too long without resolution, so I settled with my brother about distribution of the estate. The lawyer said that I had no right to settle because he could get me more and then his legal fee would be more. So he sent me a bill for $150,000.
When I refused to pay, he got the Surrogate Court's approval of his fee, got a judgment, served a subpoena on me for interrogatories, and then filed Restraining Notices and began garnishing my money. Since he could not garnish more than $30,000, he got the Bonding Company to pay him the remainder and assigned them the judgment.
So now the Bonding Company's lawyer has served this subpoena for deposition, but he does not say that he is representing the Bonding Company and does not say that the judgment was partially satisfied by garnishing and fully satisfied by Bonding Company payment. He just refers to the original amount of the judgment and the original creditor. Also he does not mention the assignment of the judgment to the Bonding Company. And for some reason, he is saying that this was due to action in the Supreme Court (instead of Surrogate's Court). Is it possible that the Surrogate's Court lacked jurdisdiction to approve a judment for over $25,000?
Since the Bonding Company is misrepresenting and withholding factual information, I am wondering whether they have a right to go after me.