From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 8, 2016
140 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-08-2016

George DIAZ, et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants, Verizon New York, Inc., et al., respondents.

Law Office of Yana Rubin, LLC, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Krez & Flores, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edwin H. Knauer of counsel), for respondent Verizon New York, Inc. Bartlett McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Arthur T. McQuillan of counsel), for respondent DiFazio Industries, Inc.


Law Office of Yana Rubin, LLC, New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Krez & Flores, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edwin H. Knauer of counsel), for respondent Verizon New York, Inc.

Bartlett McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Arthur T. McQuillan of counsel), for respondent DiFazio Industries, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated March 27, 2015, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

By notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs sought records from the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., concerning an easement that was granted to New York Telephone Company more than 11 years prior to the subject accident. This discovery request was palpably improper, as it sought information that was not necessary and proper to the prosecution of this action (see Cook v. HMC Times Sq. Hotel, LLC, 112 A.D.3d 485, 977 N.Y.S.2d 212 ; Accent Collections, Inc. v. Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 1283, 924 N.Y.S.2d 545 ; Velez v. South Nine Realty Corp., 32 A.D.3d 1017, 1019, 822 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; Giordano v. A & M Tool & Die Co., 104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Diaz v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 8, 2016
140 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Diaz v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:George DIAZ, et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 8, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4382
31 N.Y.S.3d 892

Citing Cases

Knickerbocker Vill., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co.

The court properly denied plaintiff's request to compel disclosure of information about defendants' handling…