Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Associates

78 A.D.3d 752, 910 N.Y.S.2d 654

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 2010·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion, the defendant David Doo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated July 27, 2009, which denied his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3124 .and 3126 to compel certain discovery or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence at trial, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order vacating his demand for a bill of particulars and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR [753]*7533124 and 3126 to compel certain discovery or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence at trial, and granting the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order vacating his demand for a bill of particulars and inspection. “Where, as here, discovery demands are palpably improper in that they are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” (Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620 [2005]; see Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469, 470 [2004]; Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 536 [2003]). “[I]t is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad” discovery demand (Lopez v Huntington Autohaus, 150 AD2d 351, 352 [1989]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion, the defendant David Doo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated July 27, 2009, which denied his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3124 .and 3126 to compel certain discovery or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence at trial, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order vacating his demand for a bill of particulars and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR [753]*7533124 and 3126 to compel certain discovery or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence at trial, and granting the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order vacating his demand for a bill of particulars and inspection. “Where, as here, discovery demands are palpably improper in that they are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” (Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620 [2005]; see Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469, 470 [2004]; Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 536 [2003]). “[I]t is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad” discovery demand (Lopez v Huntington Autohaus, 150 AD2d 351, 352 [1989]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Associates, 78 A.D.3d 752, 910 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 752 (Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related