Opinion
2013-01-16
Wendell FRANCIS, appellant, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC./BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, respondent.
Wendell Francis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Marin Goodman, LLP, Harrison, N.Y. (Dean L. Jarmel of counsel), for respondent.
Wendell Francis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Marin Goodman, LLP, Harrison, N.Y. (Dean L. Jarmel of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated October 28, 2011, which denied his motion, denominated as one to vacate an order of the same court dated August 19, 2011, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel certain disclosure, and conditionally dismised the complaint unless the plaintiff provided the disclosure specified in the order dated August 19, 2011, within 45 days.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In an order dated August 19, 2011, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel certain disclosure, and directed the plaintiff to provide the subject disclosure within 30 days. The plaintiff subsequently moved to “vacate” the order dated August 19, 2011, contending that the disclosure he had been directed to provide was “sensitive information,” which was irrelevant and unnecessary to the defense of the action. By order dated October 14, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, and conditionally dismissed the complaint unless the plaintiff provided the disclosure specified in the order dated August 19, 2011, within 45 days of its new order.
CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” and this provision is liberally interpreted in favor of disclosure ( see Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952, 954, 683 N.Y.S.2d 156, 705 N.E.2d 1197;Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430;Ural v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 97 A.D.3d 562, 566, 948 N.Y.S.2d 621). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the information he was directed to provide by the order dated August 19, 2011, which he had previously refused to disclose in response to questioning at his deposition, was material and relevant to the defense of this action ( see Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d at 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430;Elie v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 716, 718, 938 N.Y.S.2d 595;cf. Holness v. Chrysler Corp., 220 A.D.2d 721, 722, 633 N.Y.S.2d 986).
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally dismissing the complaint unless the plaintiff provided the disclosure specified in the order dated August 19, 2011, within 45 days of the order dated October 14, 2011 ( see Roug Kang Wang v. Chien–Tsang Lin, 94 A.D.3d 850, 851–852, 941 N.Y.S.2d 717;Workman v. Town of Southampton, 69 A.D.3d 619, 620, 892 N.Y.S.2d 481).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.