Opinion
2013-11-27
William A. SCORZARI, Jr., appellant, v. Gary PEZZA, et al., respondents. (and a third-party action).
The Barry Fischer Law Firm LLC, New York, N.Y. (Eric S. Waldman of counsel), and Scorzari & Scorzari, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (William A. Scorzari of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed). Brian P. Neary, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for respondents.
The Barry Fischer Law Firm LLC, New York, N.Y. (Eric S. Waldman of counsel), and Scorzari & Scorzari, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (William A. Scorzari of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed). Brian P. Neary, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated August 21, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer for failure to comply with a discovery demand. Although CPLR 3101 provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101[a] ), “ ‘unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court's broad discretion’ ” (H.R. Prince, Inc. v. Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc., 107 A.D.3d 850, 850, 968 N.Y.S.2d 122, quoting Palermo Mason Constr. v. Aark Holding Corp., 300 A.D.2d 460, 461, 751 N.Y.S.2d 599; see Matter of Greenfield v. Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 A.D.3d 908, 908, 965 N.Y.S.2d 555). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's discovery demand was overbroad and burdensome ( see Matter of Greenfield v. Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 A.D.3d at 909, 965 N.Y.S.2d 555; Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Assoc., 78 A.D.3d 752, 753, 910 N.Y.S.2d 654; Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 536, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135; see generally H.R. Prince, Inc. v. Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc., 107 A.D.3d at 850, 968 N.Y.S.2d 122). “Where discovery demands are overbroad, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” ( Matter of Greenfield v. Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 A.D.3d at 909, 965 N.Y.S.2d 555 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v. Park Regent Assoc., 78 A.D.3d at 753, 910 N.Y.S.2d 654; Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d at 536, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that the defendants' failure to comply with the discovery demand was willful or contumacious, as required to support the drastic remedy of striking an answer ( see Pinto v. Tenenbaum, 105 A.D.3d 930, 931, 963 N.Y.S.2d 699; Laskin v. Friedman, 90 A.D.3d 617, 617–618, 933 N.Y.S.2d 872; Weber v. Harley–Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 58 A.D.3d 719, 722, 871 N.Y.S.2d 698).