Buxbaum v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buxbaum v. Castro

82 A.D.3d 925, 919 N.Y.2d 175

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 925 (Buxbaum v. Castro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buxbaum v. Castro, 82 A.D.3d 925, 919 N.Y.2d 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” However, the principle of “full disclosure” does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [20073; see Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct the defendant to permit him and/or his “authorized computer forensic experts” to “impound, clone and inspect” certain computer equipment, including hard drives and other digital data storage devices, possessed by the defendant (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Covello, J.E, Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” However, the principle of “full disclosure” does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [20073; see Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct the defendant to permit him and/or his “authorized computer forensic experts” to “impound, clone and inspect” certain computer equipment, including hard drives and other digital data storage devices, possessed by the defendant (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Covello, J.E, Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 925, 919 N.Y.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buxbaum-v-castro-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack