Sgro v. Drake Publishers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sgro v. Drake Publishers, Inc.

221 A.D.2d 295, 634 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12281

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 295 (Sgro v. Drake Publishers, Inc.) 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

Sgro v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 221 A.D.2d 295, 634 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered October 5, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order striking plaintiff’s interrogatories and document demands, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the four sets of interrogatories and four sets of document demands with leave to serve a single set of interrogatories and a single set of document demands on defendants-appellants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We find that the serving of four different, substantially overlapping sets of interrogatories and document demands is unnecessarily burdensome for defendants, all of whom are represented by the same counsel, as it would require defendants to sort through all the questions to determine whether any particular query had also been addressed elsewhere. Thus, plaintiff should be required to unify his interrogatories and document demands into single documents.

However, we reject defendants’ contentions that the substance of any of plaintiffs demands was "overly broad or unnecessarily burdensome” (Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616). None of the interrogatories is any broader than it has to be to obtain information relevant to plaintiffs claim that defendant Drake Publishers, Inc. ("Drake”) allegedly controlled defendant Venture Magazine, Inc. ("VMI”) during the period when plaintiff claims he was fraudulently induced by defendants Chew and Ruderman, acting on Drake’s behalf, to resign from VMI, thereby giving up rights to severance pay and vacation pay to which he otherwise would have been entitled, in exchange for a consulting agreement with defendant Drake, or to his alternative claim that defendants Chew, Ruderman and Drake were all acting on behalf of non-party CRX Acquisition Corp. in inducing plaintiff to resign. A discovery dispute is not the appropriate forum to evaluate and narrow plaintiffs’ claims. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered October 5, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order striking plaintiff’s interrogatories and document demands, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the four sets of interrogatories and four sets of document demands with leave to serve a single set of interrogatories and a single set of document demands on defendants-appellants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We find that the serving of four different, substantially overlapping sets of interrogatories and document demands is unnecessarily burdensome for defendants, all of whom are represented by the same counsel, as it would require defendants to sort through all the questions to determine whether any particular query had also been addressed elsewhere. Thus, plaintiff should be required to unify his interrogatories and document demands into single documents.

However, we reject defendants’ contentions that the substance of any of plaintiffs demands was "overly broad or unnecessarily burdensome” (Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616). None of the interrogatories is any broader than it has to be to obtain information relevant to plaintiffs claim that defendant Drake Publishers, Inc. ("Drake”) allegedly controlled defendant Venture Magazine, Inc. ("VMI”) during the period when plaintiff claims he was fraudulently induced by defendants Chew and Ruderman, acting on Drake’s behalf, to resign from VMI, thereby giving up rights to severance pay and vacation pay to which he otherwise would have been entitled, in exchange for a consulting agreement with defendant Drake, or to his alternative claim that defendants Chew, Ruderman and Drake were all acting on behalf of non-party CRX Acquisition Corp. in inducing plaintiff to resign. A discovery dispute is not the appropriate forum to evaluate and narrow plaintiffs’ claims. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 295, 634 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sgro-v-drake-publishers-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack