Cabellero v City of New York
2008 NY Slip Op 01693 [48 AD3d 727]
February 26, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008


Antonia Cabellero, Appellant,
v
City of New York,Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[*1]John Chambers, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Perry D. Silver of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow, JacobLevin, and John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 17, 2004, which denied hermotion to compel the defendant City of New York to provide copies of all contracts and recordsrelating to a certain capital project.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions fordisclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's discretionis broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbedon appeal unless it was improvidently exercised" (Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. vBrittenham, 284 AD2d 518, 518 [2001]; see Olexa v Jacobs, 36 AD3d 776, 777 [2007]; Setsuo Ito v Dryvit Sys., 5 AD3d735 [2004]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying theplaintiff's motion to compel the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) to providecopies of all contracts and records relating to a certain capital project. The record reveals that theCity had complied with a prior order directing it to make available for inspection, at either theoffice of the corporation counsel or the appropriate City agency, "[c]ontracts and all relatedcontract documents (i.e. progress reports)" for two years prior to and including the date of theoccurrence. Furthermore, the production of copies of all relevant contracts and records should notbe compelled to the extent that they are available as [*2]a matterof public record (see Public Officers Law §§ 86, 87; Blagrove v Cox,294 AD2d 526 [2002]; Penn Palace Operating v Two Penn Plaza Assoc., 215 AD2d231 [1995]; Matter of Beryl, 118 AD2d 705, 707 [1986]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller,Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.