| Montalvo v CVS Pharm., Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00313 [102 AD3d 842] |
| January 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Edward Montalvo et al., Appellants, v CVSPharmacy, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-PartyAction.) |
—[*1] McAndrew Conboy & Prisco, Melville, N.Y. (Mary C. Azzaretto of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froma resettled order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated September27, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., for aprotective order with respect to certain discovery demands.
Ordered that the resettled order is affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 3101 (a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter materialand necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden ofproof." However, "unlimited disclosure is not mandated, and the rules provide that thecourt may issue a protective order 'denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the useof any disclosure device' to 'prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment,disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts' " (County of Suffolk v Long Is.Power Auth., 100 AD3d 944, 946 [2012], quoting CPLR 3103 [a]; see Accent Collections, Inc. vCappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d 1283 [2011]). "The supervision of disclosureand the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sounddiscretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, itsdetermination will not be disturbed" (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d628, 629 [1999] [citation omitted]; see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
Here, the plaintiffs' discovery demands at issue were palpably improper in that theysought, inter alia, irrelevant information, or were overbroad and burdensome.Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting themotion of the defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., for a protective order with respect to thesubject discovery demands (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531;Astudillo v St. Francis-BeaconExtended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469, 470 [2004]). Rivera, J.P.,Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.