Opinion
Submitted June 7, 1999
September 27, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Super Seer Corporation d/b/a Super Seer Helmet Company appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 21, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York to strike a notice to admit dated May 29, 1997, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 11, 1998, as granted its motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer certain interrogatories only to the extent of precluding the plaintiffs from offering evidence at the trial as to liability beyond their response to interrogatory number 1 and those other interrogatory responses which refer back to that interrogatory, and granted the motion by the defendant City of New York, inter alia, for a protective order regarding interrogatories dated May 4, 1998.
Schulte Roth Zabel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (William A. Ruskin and Dan Chorost of counsel), for appellant.
Reibman Weiner, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Marc Reibman and Eileen Kaplan of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein, Elizabeth Gross, and Kathleen Alberton of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON. J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated August 21, 1998, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 11, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiffs and the defendant City of New York are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion in supervising and setting reasonable limits for discovery ( see generally, DeSilva v. Rosenberg, 261 A.D.2d 503 [2d Dept., May 17, 1999]; Mattocks v. White Motor Corp., 258 A.D.2d 628 [2d Dept., Feb. 22, 1999]; Page v. Muze, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 744; Matter of Walsh v. Design Concepts, 221 A.D.2d 454; see, DeSilva v. Rosenberg, 236 A.D.2d 508, 508-509; Mijatovic v. Noonan, 172 A.D.2d 806; Hyde v. Chrysler Corp., 150 A.D.2d 343).
THOMPSON, J.P., ALTMAN, FEUERSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.