Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp.
2009 NY Slip Op 01212 [59 AD3d 615]
February 17, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


Michael C. Trimarco, Respondent,
v
Data TreasuryCorporation, Appellant.

[*1]Morrison Cohen LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard B. Friedman of counsel), for appellant.

Mango & Iacoviello, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Anthony G. Mango of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated August 27, 2007,as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel discovery of informationrelated to the defendant's shareholders.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, a closely-held corporation, pursuant to anemployment agreement (hereinafter the agreement) commencing in April 2002. Pursuant to theagreement, the plaintiff's compensation included an option to purchase shares of stock in thedefendant for a period of 10 years. In November 2003, after the plaintiff had left the defendant'semploy, he sought to exercise the stock option; the defendant refused to tender the shares. Theplaintiff commenced this action, and, in April 2007, requested that the defendant provideinformation regarding its current shareholders. In response, the defendant maintained that suchinformation was not necessary to the plaintiff's claim, as the claim related to a breach allegedlyoccurring four years earlier, in 2003.

Parties are entitled to disclosure of all matter "material and necessary" to prosecution of theaction (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406[1968]; Chaudhry v Abadir, 261 AD2d 497 [1999]). Under the circumstances of thiscase, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of theplaintiff's motion which sought certain [*2]shareholderinformation in order to determine stock values (see Chaudhry v Abadir, 261 AD2d 497,498 [1999]; LoVerde v Interex Design & Equip. Corp., 54 AD2d 1090 [1976]). Mastro,J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Leventhal, 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.