| Matter of Greenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Townof Babylon |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03480 [106 AD3d 908] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Steven Greenfield,Appellant, v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Scott DeSimone, Peconic, N.Y., for respondent Michael J. Bernard, as Assessor ofthe Town of Babylon.
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of theBoard of Assessment Review for the Town of Babylon, dated July 15, 2009, whichdenied the petitioner/plaintiff's application pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 toreduce the tax assessment of his real property for tax year 2009-2010, and action for ajudgment, among other things, declaring that the method of tax assessment imposed isinvalid and unconstitutional, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated January25, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion which was to compel disclosure ofdocuments requested in items 3 through 11 of his notice of discovery and inspectiondated June 20, 2011, insofar as related to tax years 2008/2009, 2010/2011, and2011/2012.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be anapplication for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the petitioner/plaintiff's motionwhich was to compel certain disclosure on the ground that he failed to submit anaffirmation of good faith pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) (2) detailing communicationsbetween the parties evincing a diligent effort to resolve the dispute, or indicating goodcause why no such communications occurred (see 22 NYCRR 202.7 [c]; Quiroz v Beitia, 68 AD3d957, 960 [2009]; Natoli vMilazzo, 65 AD3d 1309 [2009]; Amherst Synagogue v Schuele Paint Co., Inc., 30 AD3d1055 [2006]; Romero v Korn, 236 AD2d 598 [1997]; Koelbl vHarvey, 176 AD2d 1040 [1991]).
In any event, that branch of the motion was properly denied because the documentdemands, even limited to those concerning tax years 2008/2009, 2010/2011, and2011/2012, were of an overbroad and burdensome nature. Although CPLR 3101 (a)provides for "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution ordefense of an action," unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosureis generally left to the Supreme Court's broad [*2]discretion (see Mironer v City of New York, 79 AD3d 1106 [2010];Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460 [2002]). Whiledocuments related to the actions of the Board of Assessment Review for the Town ofBabylon are relevant to this hybrid proceeding and action alleging statutory andconstitutional violations, the Supreme Court properly determined that the "sweepingdemands" of the notice of discovery and inspection were overbroad and burdensome (see Kregg v Maldonado, 98AD3d 1289 [2012]; OpticPlus Enters., Ltd. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 35 AD3d 1263 [2006]; Bongiorno v Livingston, 20AD3d 379, 382 [2005]). "Where discovery demands are overbroad, 'the appropriateremedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it' " (Kregg vMaldonado, 98 AD3d at 1290, quoting Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park RegentAssoc., 78 AD3d 752, 753 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Mastro,J.P., Hall, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.