Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh

45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by59 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 531 (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh) 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
Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 21, 2006, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to certain discovery demands and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion which was for a protective order as to those demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

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, and the trial courts have “broad power to regulate discovery to prevent abuse” (Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873, 874 [1980]).

It is well settled that “[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999]; see Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200 [1991]). Here, the plaintiffs document demands at issue were palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant and/or confidential information, or were overbroad and burdensome. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to the contested discovery demands and in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for a protective order with respect to the contested demands (see Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469 [2004]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Harrington v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 00296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Hamed v. Alas Realty Corp.
175 N.Y.S.3d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Demirayak v. Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C.
163 N.Y.S.3d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
2020 NY Slip Op 07155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Board of Mgrs. of Fishkill Woods Condominium v. Gottlieb
2020 NY Slip Op 3493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Kiernan v. Booth Mem. Med. Ctr.
2019 NY Slip Op 6596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Mendives v. Curcio
2019 NY Slip Op 5771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Asphalt Maintenance Servs. Corp. v. Oneil
2019 NY Slip Op 5508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Arch Ins. Co. v. Delric Constr. Co., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 5507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pascual v. Rustic Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 4394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Kayantas v. Restaurant Depot, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 4367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
McAlwee v. Westchester Health Assoc., PLLC
2018 NY Slip Op 5030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Ural v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am.
2018 NY Slip Op 1350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Levenson
2017 NY Slip Op 3161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Stepping Stones Associatess, L.P. v. Scialdone
2017 NY Slip Op 1726 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Pesce v. Fernandez
2016 NY Slip Op 7172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Whitnum v. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C.
142 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Aalco Transportation & Storage, Inc. v. DeGuara
140 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Jordan v. City of New York
137 A.D.3d 1084 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Berkowitz v. 29 Woodmere Blvd. Owners', Inc.
135 A.D.3d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilman-ciocia-inc-v-walsh-nyappdiv-2007.