Clark v Halmar Equities, Inc.

2011 NY Slip Op 07599 [88 AD3d 940]

October 25, 2011

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Charles Clark et al., Respondents, v Halmar Equities, Inc.,et al., Appellants.

—[*1]Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey C. Crawford and Sara F.Lieberman of counsel), for appellant Halmar Equities, Inc.

Morenus, Conway, Goren & Brandman, Melville, N.Y. (Thomas B. Goren of counsel), forappellant Industrial Time & Systems, Inc.

Baker Greenspan & Bernstein, Bellmore, N.Y. (Robin R. Halstrom of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants separately appealfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated June 15, 2010, whichgranted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants' compliance withtheir discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the supervision of discovery, and itsdetermination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Congel v Malfitano, 84 AD3d1145 [2011]; Peluso v Red RoseRest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694[2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants'compliance with their discovery demands. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.