| Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park RegentAssoc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08055 [78 AD3d 752] |
| November 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Board of Managers of the Park Regent Condominium,Respondent, v Park Regent Associates, Also Known as Park Regent Unit OwnersAssociates, Defendants, and David Doo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Schechter & Brucker, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth H. Amorello of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion, the defendant DavidDoo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated July 27,2009, which denied his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 3126 to compelcertain discovery or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence attrial, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order vacating his demand for a billof particulars and inspection.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion,inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 3126 to compel certain discovery or, in the alternative, topreclude the plaintiff from adducing certain evidence at trial, and granting the plaintiff's crossmotion for a protective order vacating his demand for a bill of particulars and inspection."Where, as here, discovery demands are palpably improper in that they are overbroad, lackspecificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, the appropriate remedy is to vacate theentire demand rather than to prune it" (Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620 [2005]; see Astudillo v St. Francis-BeaconExtended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469, 470 [2004]; Latture v Smith, 304AD2d 534, 536 [2003]). "[I]t is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad" discovery demand(Lopez v Huntington Autohaus, 150 AD2d 351, 352 [1989]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andLott, JJ., concur.