| Taji Communications, Inc. v Bronxville Towers Apts. Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01332 [48 AD3d 551] |
| February 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Taji Communications, Inc., et al.,Respondents, v Bronxville Towers Apartments Corp. et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Paul W. Meyer, Jr., Yonkers, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property and breach of a lease, thedefendants Bronxville Towers Apartments Corp., Barhite and Holzinger, Inc., and Randy Elsonappeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, WestchesterCounty (Lefkowitz, J.), entered April 26, 2007, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs'motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel them to respond to certain discoverydemands.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on facts and in the exercise ofdiscretion, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 tocompel the appellants to respond to certain discovery demands is denied.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, in effect, granting that branchof the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the appellants to respondto certain discovery demands (see Olexav Jacobs, 36 AD3d 776 [2007]; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721[1995]). The plaintiffs' demands for discovery and inspection were overly broad and soughtirrelevant documents (see CPLR 3120 [1]; Law Offs. Binder & Binder, P.C. v O'Shea, 44 AD3d 626 [2007];Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon ExtendedCare Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469 [2004]; Ritchie v Carvel Corp., 180 AD2d 788[1992]). Under these circumstances, since striking the demands would be "the appropriateremedy" (Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d at 470),the appellants should not have been compelled to respond. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Angiolillo andCarni, JJ., concur.