Opinion
2013-06349
03-25-2015
CITY OF NEWBURGH, New York, appellant, v. William J. HAUSER, etc., et al., respondents.
Burke, Miele, & Golden, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Richard B. Golden and Kelly M. Naughton of counsel), for appellant. Gogick, Byrne & O'Neill LLP, New York, N.Y. (Navid Ansari of counsel), for respondents.
Burke, Miele, & Golden, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Richard B. Golden and Kelly M. Naughton of counsel), for appellant.
Gogick, Byrne & O'Neill LLP, New York, N.Y. (Navid Ansari of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and professional malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated February 25, 2013, which granted the defendants' motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain documents submitted in a private mediation proceeding between the plaintiff and a nonparty, and denied its cross motion for an order of protection.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants sought to compel the plaintiff to produce certain documents submitted in a private mediation proceeding between the plaintiff and a nonparty. The subject documents are material and relevant to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101 ; Andon v. 302–304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 745–746, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589 ; Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430 ; Yoshida v. Hsueh–Chih Chin, 111 A.D.3d 704, 705–706, 974 N.Y.S.2d 580 ; Osowski v. AMEC Constr. Mgt., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 99, 887 N.Y.S.2d 11 ; American Re–Ins. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 19 A.D.3d 103, 796 N.Y.S.2d 89 ; Masterwear Corp. v. Bernard, 3 A.D.3d 305, 771 N.Y.S.2d 72 ; Masterwear Corp. v. Bernard, 298 A.D.2d 249, 750 N.Y.S.2d 5 ).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, CPLR 4547 does not bar disclosure of the subject documents, as that statute is concerned with the admissibility of evidence, and does not limit the discoverability of evidence (see Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 77 A.D.3d 224, 233, 906 N.Y.S.2d 651, mod. on other grounds 18 N.Y.3d 652, 944 N.Y.S.2d 429, 967 N.E.2d 652 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to compel discovery, and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for an order of protection.
BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.