Opinion
2012-01-19
JOHN C. VORYS, as Executor of the Estate of HELEN C. MURRAY, Deceased, Appellant, v. CAMP MENAWA, LLC, et al., Respondents.
Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, L.L.P., Albany (Heather D. Diddel of counsel) and Wilkins & Griffin, P.L.L.C., Lake Placid, (John T. Wilkins of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of James M. Brooks, Lake Placid (James M. Brooks of counsel), for respondents.
Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, L.L.P., Albany (Heather D. Diddel of counsel) and Wilkins & Griffin, P.L.L.C., Lake Placid, (John T. Wilkins of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of James M. Brooks, Lake Placid (James M. Brooks of counsel), for respondents.
BEFORE: MERCURE, Acting P.J., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and McCARTHY, JJ.
KAVANAGH, J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered March 30, 2011 in Essex County, which denied plaintiff's motion for an order compelling certain disclosure from nonparty witnesses.
In 2002, Helen C. Murray (hereinafter decedent) sold a parcel of real property located in the Village of Lake Placid, Essex County to defendants. Pursuant to the contract of sale, decedent retained a life estate in the property and defendants executed a mortgage on the property in favor of decedent. When a dispute arose regarding the obligations assumed by the parties for repairs and maintenance to the property, decedent, in 2004, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage on the property since defendants defaulted on their payments. Defendants filed a counterclaim to recover monies they claimed to have expended to perform repairs and maintenance on the property. Upon decedent's death, plaintiff was appointed executor of her estate. In 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for an order permitting service of subpoenas to depose up to 10 nonparty witnesses who were familiar with the property that is the subject of this litigation. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion and plaintiff now appeals.
“Disclosure against a nonparty is available only upon a showing of special circumstances, i.e., that the information sought to be discovered is material and necessary and cannot be discovered from other sources or otherwise is necessary to prepare for trial. Whether such special circumstances have been shown to exist is a sui generis inquiry committed to the sound discretion of the court to which the application is made” ( King v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 A.D.2d 748, 748, 604 N.Y.S.2d 302 [1983] [citations omitted]; see Parnes v. Parnes, 80 A.D.3d 948, 953, 915 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2011]; Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Town of Nassau, 80 A.D.3d 199, 202–203, 912 N.Y.S.2d 798 [2010]; see also CPLR 3101[a][4] ). Inasmuch as plaintiff did not establish that the information sought from the nonparty witnesses could not be obtained from other sources, we are unwilling to conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion ( see Caruso v. Northeast Emergency Med. Assoc., P.C., 85 A.D.3d 1502, 1506, 926 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2011]; Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Town of Nassau, 80 A.D.3d at 202–203, 912 N.Y.S.2d 798).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.