Opinion
8468 8469N Index 160953/13
02-21-2019
Margaret O'HALLORAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Steve S. Efron, New York, for appellants. The Kurland Group, New York (Erica T. Healey–Kagan of counsel), for respondent.
Steve S. Efron, New York, for appellants.
The Kurland Group, New York (Erica T. Healey–Kagan of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Tom, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
The court providently exercised its discretion in granting in part plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and ordering defendants to run searches of electronic mailboxes of defendants' employees and to produce those documents responsive to plaintiffs' requests ( CPLR 3101[a] ; 148 Magnolia, LLC v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 486, 487, 878 N.Y.S.2d 727 [1st Dept. 2009] ; see also Andon v. 302–304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 745, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589 [2000] ; GoSMILE, Inc. v. Levine, 112 A.D.3d 469, 977 N.Y.S.2d 206 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The record demonstrates that plaintiff's requests seek material and necessary information, and that her search terms, all of which were to be combined with her name or nickname or the name or nickname of a coworker she alleges was discriminated or retaliated against on similar grounds, would result in the disclosure of relevant evidence, and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information.
Plaintiff's second Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, dated November 30, 2017, seeking all complaints, discrimination-related or not, involving defendant George Menduina's conduct from 2010 to present, sought information material and necessary to this particular lawsuit because such information was relevant not only to whether Menduina, plaintiff's supervisor, discriminated against plaintiff, but also to whether Menduina was more qualified than plaintiff to hold the very position that plaintiff alleges she was denied for discriminatory reasons.
In support of their motion for leave to renew, defendants cited no new facts that would change the court's prior determination. As a result, their motion to renew and reargue was in essence only a motion for reargument, the denial of which is non-appealable of right (see e.g. Kitchen v. Diakhate, 68 A.D.3d 570, 889 N.Y.S.2d 846 [1st Dept. 2009] ).