| Scorzari v Pezza |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07956 [111 AD3d 916] |
| November 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| William A. Scorzari, Jr., Appellant, v Gary Pezzaet al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Brian P. Neary, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Rebolini, J.), dated August 21, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion whichwas pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of theplaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer forfailure to comply with a discovery demand. Although CPLR 3101 provides for "fulldisclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action"(CPLR 3101 [a]), " 'unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure isgenerally left to the trial court's broad discretion' " (H.R. Prince, Inc. v Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc., 107 AD3d 850,850 [2013], quoting Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d460, 461 [2002]; see Matter ofGreenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 AD3d908, 908 [2013]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff'sdiscovery demand was overbroad and burdensome (see Matter of Greenfield v Boardof Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 AD3d at 909; Board of Mgrs. of the Park RegentCondominium v Park Regent Assoc., 78 AD3d 752, 753 [2010]; Latture vSmith, 304 AD2d 534, 536 [2003]; see generally H.R. Prince, Inc. v Elite Envtl.Sys., Inc., 107 AD3d at 850). "Where discovery demands are overbroad, theappropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it" (Matter ofGreenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon, 106 AD3d at 909[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Board of Mgrs. of the Park RegentCondominium v Park Regent Assoc., 78 AD3d at 753; Latture v Smith, 304AD2d at 536). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that the defendants'failure to comply with the discovery demand was willful or contumacious, as required tosupport the drastic remedy of striking an answer (see Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930, 931 [2013]; Laskin v Friedman, 90 AD3d617, 617-618 [2011]; Weber v Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 58 AD3d 719,722 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.