Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v. First Secured Capital Corp.

292 A.D.2d 515, 739 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 515 (Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v. First Secured Capital Corp.) 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
Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v. First Secured Capital Corp., 292 A.D.2d 515, 739 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover on promissory notes, the defendant First Secured Capital Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated November 2, 2001, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) to vacate stated portions of an order of a court-appointed referee dated August 7, 2001, which directed it to respond to certain interrogatories and to provide certain document discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the defendant First Secured Capital Corporation shall respond to the interrogatories and document demands within 30 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order.

The requirement of CPLR 3101 (a) that there be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” is interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure (see, Liverano v Devinsky, 278 AD2d 386, 387). The Supreme Court providently exercised its wide discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of the referee requiring it to respond to certain interrogatories and document demands (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Matter of Town of Pleasant Val. v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 253 AD2d 8, 16). The evidence sought by the plaintiffs was material and necessary to the prosecution of its claim to contractual security interests in the appellant’s property and instruments.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc.
103 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ural v. Encompass Insurance Co. of America
97 A.D.3d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Occidental Gems, Inc.
41 A.D.3d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa
21 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Di Mascio v. General Electric Co.
307 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 515, 739 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-capital-advisors-inc-v-first-secured-capital-corp-nyappdiv-2002.