On January 26, 2022, Justice Emerson of the Suffolk County Commercial Division issued a decision in Tsunis Gasparis LLP v. Ring, 2022 NY Slip Op. 50070(U), holding that an account holder had standing to challenge subpoenas for its financial records, explaining:
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the defendants have standing to challenge the subpoenas. CPLR 3103(a) was amended in 2013 to allow any party or any person about whom discovery is sought to move for a protective order. AQ Asset Mgt. LLC v Levine (111 AD3d 245 [1st Dept]), upon which the plaintiff relies, is not binding on this court. Moreover, it relies on Matter of Shapiro v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (53 AD2d 542 [1st Dept]), a case that was decided in 1976, well before the 2013 amendment to CPLR 3103(a), and which involved a subpoena issued by a Special Assistant Attorney General. While New York courts have held that bank customers have no proprietary interest in the records kept by the banks with which they do business, the vast majority of those cases involved subpoenas issued in conjunction with grand-jury investigations, or they were incidental to a government entity’s investigatory activities. Hyatt v State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., (105 AD3d 186), upon which the plaintiff also relies, involved administratively issued subpoenas that were served in New York in connection with a California tax proceeding. The Second Department found that Hyatt had standing to challenge the subpoenas because he had a proprietary interest in the materials they sought. The Second Department also found that, as a party to the underlying tax proceeding, he had standing under CPLR 3103 (a). As parties to this proceeding, the defendants have standing under CPLR 3103 (a). Accordingly, the court declines to follow AQ Asset Mgt. LLC v Levine (supra).
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).