| Spodek v Neiss |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00950 [70 AD3d 810] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| J. Leonard Spodek, Also Known as Leonard Spodek, et al.,Respondents, v Charles Neiss et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Miller Rosado & Algios, LLP, Mineola, N.Y., and Katsky Korins, LLP, New York, N.Y.(Thomas M. Lopez and Joshua S. Margolin of counsel), for respondents J. Leonard Spodek, alsoknown as Leonard Spodek, and Rosalind Spodek (one brief filed).
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants, other thanthe defendants Moses Fried, Bernice Fried, and John Doe Nos. 1 through 10, appeal from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 2, 2009, which denied theirmotion to compel certain disclosure.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions thereforrests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of thatdiscretion, its determination will not be disturbed" (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258AD2d 628, 629 [1999] [citations omitted]; see Olexa v Jacobs, 36 AD3d 776, 777 [2007]; Ito v Dryvit Sys., 5 AD3d 735[2004]; Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200 [1991]). Here, the record reveals that theSupreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion. Skelos,J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.