Opinion
2012-04-24
ACCENT COLLECTIONS, INC., appellant, v. CAPPELLI ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., respondents.
Lane Sash & Larrabee, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (J. Mark Lane, Sharon M. Sash, and J. Patrick Carley III of counsel), for appellant. DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Brian T. Belowich of counsel), for respondents.
Lane Sash & Larrabee, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (J. Mark Lane, Sharon M. Sash, and J. Patrick Carley III of counsel), for appellant. DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Brian T. Belowich of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered February 8, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate a trial readiness order dated November 1, 2010.
ORDERED that the order entered February 8, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“ ‘The Supreme Court has broad discretion in the supervision of discovery, and its determinations should not be disturbed on appeal unless improvidently made’ ” ( Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426, quoting Casabona v. Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 A.D.3d 723, 723, 816 N.Y.S.2d 143). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the trial readiness order based upon its determination that, pursuant to a compliance conference order, the additional discovery sought by the plaintiff was waived ( see Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 284 A.D.2d 518, 727 N.Y.S.2d 142; cf. Summers v. Kardex Sys., 210 A.D.2d 216, 619 N.Y.S.2d 963; see generally Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d at 1140, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426; Casabona v. Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 A.D.3d at 723, 816 N.Y.S.2d 143).