Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc.

2010 NY Slip Op 08081 [78 AD3d 802]

November 9, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Maryann Peluso et al., Appellants, v Red Rose Restaurant,Inc., et al., Respondents.

—[*1]Robert C. Fintanelli, P.C. (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. of counsel), forappellants. Chesney & Murphy, LLP (Gannon, Rosenfarb & Moskowitz, New York, N.Y. [LisaL. Gokhulsingh], of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated July 1, 2009, which granted thedefendants' cross motion to stay all proceedings in the action pursuant to CPLR 2201 pendingresolution of an action entitled Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Red Rose Rest., Inc.,commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, under index No. 109554/07, and deniedtheir cross motion to compel certain additional discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is within the Supreme Court's discretion to issue a stay pursuant to CPLR 2201 (see Winters Bros. Recycling Corp. v H.B.Millwork, Inc., 72 AD3d 942 [2010]; Fleet Natl. Bank v Marrazzo, 23 AD3d 337 [2005]). The SupremeCourt providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' cross motion to stay allproceedings in the subject action pending resolution of an action commenced by the defendants'insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage for the defendants (seeMorehouse v Lagas, 274 AD2d 791 [2000]; Dionisio v Auto Hire, 67 AD2d 996[1979]; see also Cubero v Schwartz, 51 AD2d 760 [1976]; Ganas v Terry, 16AD2d 826 [1962]).

CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material andnecessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." The principle of "full disclosure" does notgive a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45AD3d 531 [2007]). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision ofdisclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of thatdiscretion (see Reilly Green Mtn.Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694 [2009]; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728 [2008]; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45AD3d 531 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denyingthe plaintiffs' cross motion to compel certain additional discovery (see Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810[2010]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.