| Diaz v City of New York |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03476 [117 AD3d 777] |
| May 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| George Diaz et al., Appellants, v City of NewYork et al., Defendants, and Verizon New York, Inc.,Respondent. |
Law Office of Yana Rubin, LLC, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Krez & Flores, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edwin H. Knauer of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated October 5,2012, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compelthe defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery andinspection of material spanning a period of 10 years prior to the date of the subjectaccident.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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 court may deny, limit,condition, or regulate the use of any disclosure device to prevent unreasonableannoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person orthe courts (see CPLR 3103 [a]; Montalvo v CVS Pharm., Inc., 102 AD3d 842, 843 [2013];County of Suffolk v Long Is.Power Auth., 100 AD3d 944, 946 [2012]; Accent Collections, Inc. v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d1283 [2011]). "The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms andconditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent animprovident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed"(Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999] [citation omitted];see Jet One Group, Inc. vHalcyon Jet Holdings, Inc., 111 AD3d 890, 891 [2013]; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. vWalsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
The plaintiffs' notice for discovery and inspection was palpably improper in that itsought, inter alia, irrelevant information, or was overbroad and burdensome.Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thatbranch of the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel thedefendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery andinspection of material spanning a period of 10 years prior to the date of the subjectaccident (see Jones v LeFranceLeasing L.P., 81 AD3d 900, 903 [2011]; Hualde v Otis El. Co., 235AD2d 269, 270 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.