| Downing v Moskovits |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00335 [58 AD3d 671] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Glendalyn Downing, Appellant, v Tomas Moskovits et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Talkin, Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark Muccigrosso of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from so much of anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), dated July 10, 2007, as denied thosebranches of her motion which were to compel the defendants Tomas Moskovits and CrystalGroup, LLC, to respond to interrogatories and certain document requests, and granted so muchof the cross motion of those defendants as sought a protective order striking the interrogatoriesand document requests.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
" 'The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions fordisclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court' " (Olexa v Jacobs, 36 AD3d 776,777 [2007], quoting Ito v DryvitSys., 5 AD3d 735 [2004]). " 'Under our discovery statutes and case law, competinginterests must always be balanced; the need for discovery must be weighed against any specialburden to be borne by the opposing party' " (Kavanagh v Ogden Allied MaintenanceCorp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998], quoting O'Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d521, 529 [1988]). Here, upon balancing the parties' interests, the Supreme Court properlydetermined, inter alia, that the defendants Tomas Moskovits and Crystal Group, LLC(hereinafter the defendants), had already provided sufficient answers to interrogatories. Theinterrogatories and document requests, other than those which [*2]resulted in the responses already provided by the defendants, wereoverbroad and improper (see Stever vStever, 10 AD3d 358, 359 [2004]; Botsas v Grossman, 7 AD3d 654, 655 [2004]; EIFS, Inc. vMorie Co., 298 AD2d 548, 549 [2002]), with the exception of the court's determination thatthe defendants were to provide all correspondence between themselves, as well as with theplaintiff, related to the subject real estate transaction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlydenied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendants to respondto interrogatories and certain document requests.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Carni andDickerson, JJ., concur.