STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HARSHAD PATEL (L-0954-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0602-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ex. rel.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and MEDICAL
INVESTIGATION GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
HARSHAD PATEL, AP SURGERY
CENTER, L.L.C., and AP
DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________
Submitted November 8, 2021 – Decided November 22, 2021
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-0954-16.
Ehrlich, Petriello, Gudin, Plaza & Reed, attorneys for
appellants (John Petriello, on the brief).
Kennedy Vuernick, LLC, attorneys for respondents
(Richard E. Vuernick, of counsel; John Kennedy, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendants Harshad Patel, AP Surgery Center, LLC, and AP Diagnostic
Imaging, Inc. appeal from an October 21, 2020 order denying their motion to
quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum directed to a non-party,
Devika Patel.1 We affirm.
The factual background preceding the issuance of the post-judgment
subpoena by plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company and Medical Investigation
Group, Inc. is set forth in our prior decision, affirming entry of a judgment based
on an enforceable settlement among the parties. See State ex rel. Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Patel, No. A-1437-18 (App. Div. Dec. 5, 2019), certif. denied, 241 N.J.
201 (2020). Defendants paid the judgment except for the sum of $27,195.76,2
representing an award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs.
In an effort to collect the balance of the judgment, plaintiffs served a
subpoena on Devika Patel. Plaintiffs believe defendant Harshad Patel secreted
funds by transferring assets to his wife to avoid paying the judgment. Plaintiffs
1
Devika Patel is the wife of defendant Harshad Patel.
2
Plaintiffs contends defendants still owe $27,980.70 under the judgments. The
record lacks information explaining this discrepancy.
A-0602-20
2
formed this belief based on Devika Patel's certification opposing plaintiffs'
motion to turnover funds levied upon a joint bank account. In her certification,
Devika Patel averred "[t]he funds which were levied upon came from the sale of
property. The property was in my name, and not in the name of Harshad. These
monies belong to me, and not to Harshad." Plaintiffs' subpoena sought
information about the source of the funds which Devika Patel claimed belonged
solely to her, as well as testimony and documents pertaining to any properties
she bought and sold.
Defendants moved to quash the subpoena. In a decision placed on the
record on October 20, 2020, the judge denied defendants' motion. The judge
found Devika Patel's certification "lack[ed] any factual support." He also
referred to other cases, one pending in federal district court and one in state
court in Union County, in which Devika Patel invoked her Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination and declined to give sworn testimony regarding
various assets. In reviewing the history of the other legal actions, the judge
noted a significant relationship between Harshad Patel and Devika Patel with
respect to the financial assets. Based on that information, the judge concluded,
"[t]he subpoena's requests are reasonable, seek relevant documents and . . . fall
within the ambit of the broad parameters of permissible discovery under New
A-0602-20
3
Jersey [l]aw." He determined the "[d]iscovery in this matter is relevant" because
"it is clear there's a significant relationship" between Harshad Patel, Devika
Patel, and the transfer of assets and "that relationship needs to be explored."
On appeal, defendants assert the motion judge erred in denying the motion
to quash the subpoena. 3 We disagree.
A trial court "may quash or modify [a] subpoena or notice if compliance
would be unreasonable or oppressive . . . ." R. 1:9-2. We review a trial judge's
decision on a motion to quash a subpoena for abuse of discretion. In re
Subpoena Duce Tecum, 214 N.J. 147, 162 (2013).
Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
judge's denial of defendants' motion to quash the subpoena. The judge found
the requested information to be relevant. Additionally, there was a valid
judgment against defendants as affirmed by this court on appeal. Under Rule
4:59-1(f), "in aid of a judgment or execution, the judgment creditor . . . may
examine any person, including the judgment debtor, by proceeding as provided
by these rules for the taking of depositions . . . ." The judge also noted there
are several lawsuits seeking information from Devika Patel related to assets her
3
On appeal, defendants cited only to the court rule governing subpoenas and
provided no case law in support of their argument.
A-0602-20
4
husband, Harshad Patel, transferred to her to avoid paying judgments entered
against him. On this record, there is no indication the subpoena is oppressive or
unreasonable, and the judge's denial of the motion to quash the subpoena was
not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
A-0602-20
5