Clark v. Halmar Equities, Inc.
This text of 88 A.D.3d 940 (Clark v. Halmar Equities, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the supervision of discovery, and its determination will not be [941]*941disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Congel v Malfitano, 84 AD3d 1145 [2011]; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants’ compliance with their discovery demands. Mastro, J.P, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
88 A.D.3d 940, 931 N.Y.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-halmar-equities-inc-nyappdiv-2011.