Lerner v. 300 West 17th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lerner v. 300 West 17th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.

232 A.D.2d 249, 648 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10121

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered May 1, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to answer plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories and first request for the production of documents, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 9, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

[250] The majority of the requests in plaintiffs’ document demand are so vague and overbroad as to be palpably improper. Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, while more carefully drafted, also contain a substantial number of overly broad, vague and burdensome items. Under the circumstances, the motion court properly chose to vacate the entire demand and interrogatories rather than prune them (Editel, N. Y. v Liberty Studios, 162 AD2d 345). Concerning the cross appeal, we agree with the motion court that the complaint in this derivative action sets forth factually specific allegations of wrongdoing sufficient to provide a " 'basis for inquiry’ ” for the disclosure requested (see, Leonardo v Metro Burak, 114 AD2d 1013). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered May 1, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to answer plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories and first request for the production of documents, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 9, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

[250] The majority of the requests in plaintiffs’ document demand are so vague and overbroad as to be palpably improper. Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, while more carefully drafted, also contain a substantial number of overly broad, vague and burdensome items. Under the circumstances, the motion court properly chose to vacate the entire demand and interrogatories rather than prune them (Editel, N. Y. v Liberty Studios, 162 AD2d 345). Concerning the cross appeal, we agree with the motion court that the complaint in this derivative action sets forth factually specific allegations of wrongdoing sufficient to provide a " 'basis for inquiry’ ” for the disclosure requested (see, Leonardo v Metro Burak, 114 AD2d 1013). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Lerner v. 300 West 17th Street Housing Development Fund Corp., 232 A.D.2d 249, 648 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 249 (Lerner v. 300 West 17th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related