Pettinato v. Pettinato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pettinato v. Pettinato

134 A.D.2d 717, 521 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50908

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 717 (Pettinato v. Pettinato) 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

Pettinato v. Pettinato, 134 A.D.2d 717, 521 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered April 10, 1987 in Albany County, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order.

Plaintiff and defendant Charles L. Pettinato (hereinafter defendant) are brothers who were equal shareholders in a corporation engaged in the landscaping and lawn maintenance business and equal owners of real property leased to the corporation. The instant litigation resulted from their disagreement in conducting the business. Plaintiff commenced the initial action, seeking injunctive relief, an accounting and money damages. Thereafter, defendant commenced a proceeding seeking judicial dissolution of the corporation. The action and proceeding have been joined for trial. This appeal followed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion, for a protective order in the action seeking to vacate plaintiffs notice for production of documents.

We affirm. This court has repeatedly recognized that trial courts enjoy broad discretion in supervising disclosure and issuing protective orders (Andrew F. Capoccia, P. C. v Brognano, 132 AD2d 834; Albany Med. Coll. v McShane, 117 AD2d 883; Sarbro Realty Corp. v Kradjian, 116 AD 2d 866, 867). Having reviewed the record, we find ample basis for Supreme Court’s determination that the document production demand complies with the specificity requirements of CPLR 3120 (a) (1) (see, Palmieri v Kilcourse, 91 AD2d 657). Supreme Court recognized that certain demands were somewhat general and fashioned an appropriate remedy by preserving defendant’s right to raise any specific objections. Insofar as the demand relates to defendant’s new corporation, Supreme Court could readily determine that the information sought was relevant. In short, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Weiss, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered April 10, 1987 in Albany County, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order.

Plaintiff and defendant Charles L. Pettinato (hereinafter defendant) are brothers who were equal shareholders in a corporation engaged in the landscaping and lawn maintenance business and equal owners of real property leased to the corporation. The instant litigation resulted from their disagreement in conducting the business. Plaintiff commenced the initial action, seeking injunctive relief, an accounting and money damages. Thereafter, defendant commenced a proceeding seeking judicial dissolution of the corporation. The action and proceeding have been joined for trial. This appeal followed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion, for a protective order in the action seeking to vacate plaintiffs notice for production of documents.

We affirm. This court has repeatedly recognized that trial courts enjoy broad discretion in supervising disclosure and issuing protective orders (Andrew F. Capoccia, P. C. v Brognano, 132 AD2d 834; Albany Med. Coll. v McShane, 117 AD2d 883; Sarbro Realty Corp. v Kradjian, 116 AD 2d 866, 867). Having reviewed the record, we find ample basis for Supreme Court’s determination that the document production demand complies with the specificity requirements of CPLR 3120 (a) (1) (see, Palmieri v Kilcourse, 91 AD2d 657). Supreme Court recognized that certain demands were somewhat general and fashioned an appropriate remedy by preserving defendant’s right to raise any specific objections. Insofar as the demand relates to defendant’s new corporation, Supreme Court could readily determine that the information sought was relevant. In short, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 717, 521 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettinato-v-pettinato-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack