Opinion
2018–14096 File No. 391098/16
10-14-2020
In the MATTER OF MALITZ FAMILY TRUST. Jeanne Maltz, respondent; v. Allison Angorola, appellant.
Patricia Harold, Garden City, NY (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum [Joel M. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for appellant. Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Bamdad of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Harold, Garden City, NY (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum [Joel M. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for appellant.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Bamdad of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a hybrid miscellaneous proceeding and action for declaratory relief, the objectant appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Margaret C. Reilly, S.), dated September 11, 2018. The order denied the objectant's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel discovery.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner commenced this hybrid miscellaneous proceeding and action for declaratory relief in the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County, seeking, among other things, a declaration that a particular trust remained in full force and effect, and to have the objectant directed to transfer certain real property to that trust for distribution according to its terms. The objectant and others opposed, and the parties began engaging in discovery in the fall of 2017. The objectant thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel certain discovery. The objectant asserted that the petitioner failed to disclose all relevant email and text message communications, and sought to have the petitioner compelled to submit her cell phones and computer hard drives for a forensic analysis to locate undisclosed discoverable material. The Surrogate's Court denied the motion by order dated September 11, 2018. The objectant appeals.
CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." "The words, ‘material and necessary,’ are ... to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason" ( Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430 ). "At the same time, however, the principle of ‘full disclosure’ does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" ( Mendives v. Curcio, 174 A.D.3d 796, 797, 105 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; see Buxbaum v. Castro, 82 A.D.3d 925, 925, 919 N.Y.S.2d 175 ). The Court of Appeals "has recognized that ‘litigants are not without protection against unnecessarily onerous application of the discovery statutes. Under our discovery statutes and case law, competing interests must always be balanced: the need for discovery must be weighed against any special burden to be borne by the opposing party’ " ( Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 661–662, 70 N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882, quoting Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952, 954, 683 N.Y.S.2d 156, 705 N.E.2d 1197 ). " ‘It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims’ " ( Mendives v. Curcio, 174 A.D.3d at 797, 105 N.Y.S.3d 513, quoting Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 A.D.2d 420, 421, 541 N.Y.S.2d 30 ).
Here, in light of the objectant's failure to substantiate her claim that the petitioner did not produce all the discoverable material in her possession, and the breadth of irrelevant material the petitioner would be required to turn over to satisfy the objectant's request, the Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the objectant's motion, inter alia, to compel discovery (see Buxbaum v. Castro, 82 A.D.3d at 925, 919 N.Y.S.2d 175 ).
We need not reach the objectant's remaining contentions in light of our determination.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.