| H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03320 [127 AD3d 1018] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| H.P.S. Management Company, Inc., et al.,Appellants, v St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company et al.,Respondents. |
Henry M. Grubel, P.C., Bayside, N.Y. (Henry M. Grubel, named herein as HenryGrubel, pro se, and Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellants.
Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Kozoriz of counsel), forrespondents St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company and The Travelers Companies,Inc.
White and Williams LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jaime M. Merritt of counsel), forrespondent Wilton Reassurance Life Insurance Company of New York.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, theplaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), dated October 1, 2012, as denied that branch of theirmotion pursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) which was in effect, to review stated portions of adirective of a Court Attorney Referee, made at a discovery conference on June 27,2012.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costspayable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
"The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolvingdiscovery disputes. However, the Appellate Division may substitute its own discretionfor that of the trial court in such matters, even in the absence of an abuse of discretion"(Clarke v Clarke, 113 AD3d646, 646 [2014] [citations omitted]).
Here, in response to the defendants' three separate discovery demands, the plaintiffsprovided a single computer flash drive which contained more than 9,000 pages ofdocuments. The plaintiffs did not indicate which documents corresponded to whichdiscovery demands. At a discovery conference, the defendants contended that theplaintiffs failed to comply with CPLR 3122 (c) because the documents provided by theplaintiffs in response to their discovery demands were not produced in the manner thatthe documents were kept in the regular course of business and were not labeled tocorrespond to the categories in the defendants' demands. The Court Attorney Refereeagreed, and directed the plaintiffs to, in effect, provide their discovery responses in amanner that allows the defendants "to know and understand" which documents apply totheir separate discovery demands. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did notimprovidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motionpursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) which was [*2]to vacate thedirective of the Court Attorney Referee (see CPLR 3101 [a]; 3122 [c]; seealso Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). Chambers, J.P.,Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.