| Buxbaum v Castro |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01967 [82 AD3d 925] |
| March 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Buxbaum, Appellant, v Nadine Castro,Respondent. |
—[*1] Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Daryl Paxson of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated March29, 2010, as denied that branch of his motion which was to direct the defendant to permit himand/or his "authorized computer forensic experts" to "impound, clone and inspect" certaincomputer equipment, including hard drives and other digital data storage devices, possessed bythe defendant.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material andnecessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." However, the principle of "full disclosure"does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45AD3d 531 [2007]; see Peluso v RedRose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]). The Supreme Court has broad discretionover the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent animprovident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis vCortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the SupremeCourt did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motionwhich was to direct the defendant to permit him and/or his "authorized computer forensicexperts" to "impound, clone and inspect" certain computer equipment, including hard drives andother digital data storage devices, possessed by the defendant (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. vWalsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Covello, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.