Opinion
4809, 650046/15.
10-26-2017
PINNACLE SPORTS MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Leslie Kai GREENE also know as Kai L. Greene, Defendant–Respondent, Adam Paz, Defendant. [And a Third–Party Action]. Kai L. Greene, Second Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Peter Anske, Second Third–Party Defendant–Appellant, Victor Muro, et al., Second Third–Party Defendants.
Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley P.C., New York (Elana T. Henderson of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Carlene Jadusingh, New York (Carlene Jadusingh of counsel), for respondent.
Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley P.C., New York (Elana T. Henderson of counsel), for appellants.
Law Office of Carlene Jadusingh, New York (Carlene Jadusingh of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, MAZZARELLI, OING, SINGH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered March 10, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, granted so much of defendant/second third-party plaintiff Kai L. Greene's motion as sought production of plaintiff Pinnacle Sports Media & Entertainment, LLC's tax returns from 2013 to 2015, with all information other than Pinnacle's revenue to be redacted, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied.
Disclosure of tax returns is generally disfavored due to their confidential and private nature (see Lee v. Chun Ka Luk, 132 A.D.3d 515, 516, 19 N.Y.S.3d 39 [1st Dept.2015], lv. dismissed 27 N.Y.3d 975, 31 N.Y.S.3d 450, 50 N.E.3d 918 [2016] ), and Greene has not made a sufficiently particularized showing that the information contained in Pinnacle's tax returns, even if redacted to only reveal Pinnacle's revenue, is necessary to prove his claims (see id. ). Moreover, he does not address why other sources are inadequate, inaccessible, or unlikely to be productive (see id. ).