| Lentz v Nic's Gym Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06620 [76 AD3d 998] |
| September 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dawn Marie Lentz, Respondent, v Nic's Gym Incorporated,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted thatbranch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct it to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gymmats involved in the subject accident, and denied its cross motion for a protective order.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 3101 (a) is to be construed liberally so that there should be disclosure of any materialthat is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519 [2000]).However, "unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left tothe trial court's broad discretion" (Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300AD2d 460, 461 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silcox v City of NewYork, 233 AD2d 494 [1996]). The essential test is one based on "usefulness and reason"(Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000] [internal quotation marksomitted]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch ofthe plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendant to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gymmats which allegedly caused her to fall and sustain injuries, and in denying the defendant's crossmotion for a protective order. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.