SKEK Associates v. Benenson

293 A.D.2d 738, 741 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4143
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated June 18, 2001, as denied, in part, their motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with certain discovery demands, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order striking those demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, the court properly refused to compel the plaintiff to comply with the stricken discovery demands, as they sought disclosure of matters which were not material to the issues involved in the action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; cf. Wind v Eli Lilly & Co., 164 AD2d 885; Altesman v Eli Lilly & Co., 164 AD2d 876).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit (see Muller v Sorensen, 138 AD2d 683). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

SKEK Associates v. Benenson, 293 A.D.2d 738, 741 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

293 A.D.2d 738 (SKEK Associates v. Benenson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SKEK Assoc. v. Benenson
2003 NY Slip Op 23936 (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2003)
SKEK Associates v. Benenson
2 Misc. 3d 757 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)