Jane-Horatio LLC v. Caccavale

2024 NY Slip Op 51329(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 24, 2024
• Docket: 570195/24
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Jane-Horatio LLC v Caccavale (2024 NY Slip Op 51329(U)) [*1]

Jane-Horatio LLC v Caccavale

2024 NY Slip Op 51329(U)

Decided on September 24, 2024

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 24, 2024

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
570195/24

Jane-Horatio LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Kenneth Caccavale, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Vanessa Fang, J.), dated February 2, 2024, which granted its motion to strike tenant's answer only to the extent of directing tenant to produce any outstanding documents requested in the discovery demand in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Vanessa Fang, J.), dated February 2, 2024, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike tenant's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) and instead directing, inter alia, that landlord provide an updated list of outstanding documents and that tenant, within 20 days, provide the outstanding documents or written proof of his efforts to obtain such documents (see Gogos v Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc., 87 AD3d 248, 255 [2011] ["It is not the function of this Court to micromanage discovery proceedings in the trial parts, particularly where, as here, the remedy for nondisclosure is entrusted to the discretion of the motion court (CPLR 3126), and the order issued was well within the province of the court's discretion"]). Here, the drastic penalty sought by landlord was not commensurate with the alleged disobedience (see Cespedes v Mike & Jac Trucking Corp., 305 AD2d 222 [2003]). Tenant, in response to landlord's discovery demands, produced voluminous responses (see Corrigan v New York City Tr. Auth., 144 AD3d 495, 496 [2016]) including more than ten thousand pages of documents, and the delay in further production was due, in part, to difficulty in obtaining records from third-parties.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 24, 2024