[App Div 2d Dept]

Stipulations and 2221

CPLR R. 2221 Motion affecting prior order
(d) A motion for leave to reargue
(e) Motion for Leave to Renew

Churchill v Malek, 2011 NY Slip Op 03673 (App. Div. 1st 2011)

Given that, in this personal injury action, there is no claim to recover damages for emotional or psychological injury (see Valerio v Staten Is. Hosp., 220 AD2d 580 [1995]), or aggravation of a preexisting emotional or mental condition (see Sternberger v Offen, 138 AD2d 480 [1988]), plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose confidential psychological or psychiatric records (cf. Carr v 583-587 Broadway Assoc., 238 AD2d 184, 185 [1997]). Defendant's unsubstantiated claim that plaintiff's mental illness might have caused the accident is insufficient to warrant mental health disclosure (see Zimmer v Cathedral School of St. Mary & St. Paul, 204 AD2d 538, 539 [1994]).

Defendant's argument that plaintiff is bound by prior stipulations is unavailing, since both documents were clearly denominated as orders. Equally unavailing is defendant's contention that plaintiff's motion to reargue was untimely. The prior order was never served with notice of entry; therefore, the thirty-day period set forth in CPLR 2221(d)(3) has not been triggered (see Zhi Fang Shi v Sanchez, 36 AD3d 486 [2007]).

Yerushalmi v Yerushalmi, 2011 NY Slip Op 02657 (App. DIv., 2nd 2011)

" A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on a prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion'" (Swedish v Beizer, 51 AD3d 1008, 1010; quoting Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739, 740; see CPLR 2221[e]; Matter of 171 Sterling, LLC v Stone Arts, Inc., 66 AD3d 688). " Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion'" (Matter of Orange & Rockland Util. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 AD2d 668, 669, quoting Stone v Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 244 AD2d 403, 403; see City of New York v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 982).

Here, the defendant's motion, in effect, for leave to renew was not based upon new facts in existence at the time of the original motion which would have changed the prior determination, but consisted of factual material that was merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the prior motion. Accordingly, the motion, in effect, for leave to renew was properly denied.

Prinz v New York State Elec. & Gas, 2011 NY Slip Op 02648 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint, which had been granted by the Supreme Court in an earlier order. "A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination'" (Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC v Bloch, 39 AD3d 477, 480, quoting CPLR 2221[e][2]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542). Here, the allegedly new facts offered would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221[e][2]; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 985).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend his complaint (see Kazakhstan Inv. Fund v Manolovici, 2 AD3d 249, 250).

Cross motions and SJ

CPLR R. 2215 Relief Demanded by other than moving party

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects, and irregularities

Daramboukas v Samlidis, 2011 NY Slip Op 03796 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in denying Osdoby's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her on the ground that it was incorrectly labeled a cross motion. Although "[a] cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking affirmative relief from a nonmoving party" (Mango v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 843, 844; see CPLR 2215; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d 549, 550), a technical defect of this nature may be disregarded where, as here, there is no prejudice, and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to be heard on the merits of the relief sought (see CPLR 2001; Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d at 550; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283). While the Supreme Court also denied Osdoby's motion on the ground that it was not supported by pleadings and other available proof, Osdoby incorporated by reference the pleadings and exhibits submitted by Albert in support of his original motion, and those pleadings and exhibits were therefore properly before the court (see Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177; Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098; Mahone v Washington, 17 AD3d 1059). On the merits, Osdoby made a prima facie showing, through her deposition testimony, that she could not be held liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. That testimony demonstrated that she was driving in a nonnegligent manner when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the white van driven by Manginaro, and that her vehicle did not come into contact with any of the vehicles involved in the second collision about 20 car lengths east of the location where she was struck (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; Savarese v Cerrachio, 79 AD3d 725). In opposition, the plaintiffs, Manginaro, and Langaman failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court similarly erred in denying the Tam defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that it was incorrectly labeled a cross motion (see CPLR 2001; Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d at 404; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d at 550; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d at 283). On the merits, the Tam defendants made a prima facie showing that Daniel Tam was lawfully stopped at a red light when his vehicle was struck in the rear, and that he had a nonnegligent explanation for coming into contact with other vehicles at the scene after his vehicle was struck in the rear (see Savarese v Cerrachio, 79 AD3d 725; Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d at 769; Ortiz v Haidar, 68 AD3d 953; Malak v Wynder, 56 AD3d at 623; Katz v Masada II Car & Limo Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d at 877). In opposition, the plaintiffs, Manginaro, and Langaman failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Fine v One Bryant Park, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 03659 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

It is undisputed that defendants failed to file the motion within the time period set by the assigned IAS judge. The motion court concluded that defendants failed to establish good cause for the delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). A motion court's exercise of its broad discretion in determining whether the moving party has established good cause for delay will not be overturned unless it was improvident (see Daley v M/S Capital NY LLC, 44 AD3d 313, 315 [2007]; Pena v Women's Outreach Network, Inc., 35 AD3d 104, 108 [2006]). Inasmuch as the record establishes that defendants could have easily determined which judge was assigned to the matter (see Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506 [2008]), the court's exercise of its discretion was not improvident.

Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 03805 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, as untimely, National Grange's cross motion for summary judgment. While the cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), "an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds" (Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592; see Whitehead v City of New York, 79 AD3d 858, 860; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 17 AD3d 496, 497). In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely cross motion are already properly before the motion court and, thus, the nearly identical nature of the grounds may provide the requisite good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]) to review the merits of the untimely cross motion (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 592). Notably, a court, in deciding the timely motion, may search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b]).

Lyebyedyev v Hoffman, 2011 NY Slip Op 03813 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Term Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, the defendant was required to make his motion for summary judgment no later than 60 days after the filing of the note of issue, unless he obtained leave of the court on good cause shown (see Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, Part C[6], formerly Rule 13). Here, the defendant moved for summary judgment approximately 90 days after the note of issue was filed. Since the vague and conclusory assertions made by the defendant's attorney regarding the pendency of a motion to strike the note of issue and a delay in the defendant's signing and notarizing of his own deposition transcript were insufficient to constitute good cause, the Supreme Court erred in entertaining the summary judgment motion (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v Hudson Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 55 AD3d 653; State Farm Fire & Casualty v Parking Sys. Valet Serv., 48 AD3d 550; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392; Pierre v Feldman, 41 AD3d 454, 455).

Jurisdiction

CPLR § 302

Paolucci v Kamas, 2011 NY Slip Op 03823 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Personal jurisdiction can be conferred under CPLR 302(a)(1) "even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" (Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71, cert denied 549 US 1095; see Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380). Here, however, the Supreme Court properly determined that the number, nature, and quality of the defendants' contacts with New York do not evince purposeful activities by which the defendants availed themselves of the benefits and protections of New York law (see Weiss v Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, 85 AD2d 861; see also Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433; O'Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199; cf. Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375; Grimaldi v Guinn, 72 AD3d 37).

The Supreme Court also properly determined that personal jurisdiction over the defendants was not conferred pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3) based upon tortious activity occurring outside New York, causing injury within New York. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie that the defendants "[1] regularly do[ ] or solicit[ ] business, or engage[ ] in any other persistent course of conduct, or derive[ ] substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state," or "[2] expect[ ] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derive[ ] substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], [ii]; see Ingraham v Carroll, 90 NY2d 592; cf. LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 NY2d 210).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Experts

Kranis v Biederbeck, 2011 NY Slip Op 03214 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"Although a causally-related emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury'" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (Villeda v Cassas, 56 AD3d 762, 762, quoting Taranto v McCaffrey, 40 AD3d 626, 627), such injury must be serious and verifiable, and must also be established by objective medical evidence (see Bissonette v Compo, 307 AD2d 673, 674; see also Bovsun v Sanperi, 61 NY2d 219, 231-232; Krivit v Pitula, 79 AD3d 1432, 1432; Chapman v Capoccia, 283 AD2d 798).

Here, the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the infant, Ryan Biederbeck (hereinafter the infant), did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Bissonette v Compo, 307 AD2d at 674; cf. Small v Zelin, 152 AD2d 690, 691). The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion established, prima facie, that there was no objective medical evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that the infant suffered from severe emotional distress or post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the motor vehicle accident in which his father was killed. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The plaintiff's experts' affidavits and evaluation report were speculative and conclusory and did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the claim that the infant was suffering from a serious emotional injury (see e.g. Graziano v Cooling, 79 AD3d 803, 804-805).

Sometimes experts aren't necessary.

Love v Rockwell's Intl. Enters., LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 03219 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

We reject the appellant's argument that expert medical evidence was necessary to prove that the battery caused the plaintiff's broken jaw. Under the circumstances of this case, "the results of the alleged assault and battery are within the experience and observation of an ordinary layperson" (Breen v Laric Entertainment Corp., 2 AD3d 298, 300; see Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208, 212).

3025 and 2106

CPLR R. 3025

CPLR R. 2106

Schwartz v Sayah, 2011 NY Slip Op 03227 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]; Thomas Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170) in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay (see Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v Vengroff Williams & Assoc., 306 AD2d 435, 436). Moreover, where the motion is made during trial, as here, the court's discretion in deciding the motion for leave to amend should be discrete, circumspect, prudent, and cautious (see Alrose Oceanside, LLC v Mueller, 81 AD3d 574; Morris v Queens Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 827, 828). Leave to amend should not be granted where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit (see Jenal v Brown, 80 AD3d 727; Morton v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 AD3d 381).

In this case, given the appellant's extensive and unexcused delay in seeking leave to amend, the obvious prejudice which the amendment would create in delaying the trial and confusing the proceedings with collateral issues, and the totally meritless nature of the proposed counterclaim given the absence of allegations regarding an intent to deceive on the part of the plaintiff and damages suffered by the appellant (see generally Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108; Boglia v Greenberg, 63 AD3d 973, 975; Pui Sang Lai v Shuk Yim Lau, 50 AD3d 758, 759), the Supreme Court properly denied the motion for leave to amend (see Jenal v Brown, 80 AD3d 727; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 273 AD2d 458, 459; County of Suffolk v Caccavalla, 227 AD2d 511, 513). We note in this regard that the submission by the appellant, an attorney, of an affirmation rather than an affidavit in support of the motion was improper (see CPLR 2106), and that document should have been disregarded because it was not in admissible form (see Matter of Nazario v Ciafone, 65 AD3d 1240, 1241; Lessoff v 26 Ct St. Asso.s., LLC, 58 AD3d 610, 611; Finger v Saal, 56 AD3d 606, 607; Pisacreta v Minniti, 265 AD2d 540).

SJ must be viewed in light favorable to the non-moving party

Someone was looking for a case that said this, or something like it, the other day.

CPLR R. 3212

Kutkiewicz v Horton, 2011 NY Slip Op 03215 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

When viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, here the plaintiffs (see Stukas v Streiter,AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 01832 [2d Dept 2011]), the evidence Horton submitted in support of the motion established prima facie that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Kutkiewicz's failure to yield the right of way to Horton's vehicle (see Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d 762, 763-764; Vainer v DiSalvo, 79 AD3d 1023, 1024). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to whether Horton was at fault in the happening of the accident (see Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d at 764; Vainer v DiSalvo, 79 AD3d at 1024). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted Horton's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Non-Con and venue

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

Otero v Davis, 2011 NY Slip Op 03191 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendant failed to meet her burden to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum for this action (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court did not properly consider the relevant factors (see Pahlavi at 479).

Mann v Janyear Trading Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 03192 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The untimeliness of defendants' demand for a change of venue and the subsequent motion is excusable because the summons, complaint, and bill of particulars misleadingly indicated that plaintiff resided in Bronx County (see Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178 [1990]). Furthermore, the record shows that defendants promptly moved only days after ascertaining that the statements made by plaintiff were misleading (see id.).

Regarding the merits, the motion, which was based on plaintiff's designation of an improper county (CPLR 510[1]), should have been granted and venue changed to Kings County (defendants' residence). Plaintiff's assertion that she resided in Bronx County is untenable in light of her deposition testimony. When asked if she ever resided at her parents' residence in the Bronx "at any time during 2006," which was when the accident occurred and the action was commenced, plaintiff replied "no" and that she had lived in New York County during the relevant time (see Santulli v Santulli, 228 AD2d 247, 248 [1996]).

Mohsin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2011 NY Slip Op 03119 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendants' moving papers were deficient inasmuch as they failed to provide the names, addresses and occupation of prospective non-party witnesses, the proposed testimony, the witnesses' willingness to testify, and that the witnesses will be inconvenienced by the present venue (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [2004]); the convenience of party witnesses is not a factor (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]). The affidavits submitted for the first time in defendants' reply papers should not have been considered by the court, as they improperly raised new facts not directly responsive to plaintiff's opposition, which merely highlighted the deficiency of defendants' initial papers (see Root v Brotmann, 41 AD3d 247 [2007]; Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [2006]).

Weiss v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 02814 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper (see Hernandez v Seminatore, 48 AD3d 260 [2008]; CPLR 510[a]). Defendant submitted proof indicating that plaintiff's claimed residence in New York County was an office building, not an apartment building. Defendant also submitted motor vehicle records showing that plaintiff resided in Orange County at all relevant times (see Collins v Glenwood Mgt. Cor., 25 AD3d 447, 448 [2006]. Plaintiff's conclusory affidavit attesting to her New York County residence was insufficient to rebut defendant's proof (see Furlow v Braeubrun, 259 AD2d 417 [1999]). Furthermore, since plaintiff forfeited the right to select the venue by choosing an improper venue in the first instance (see Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556 [1992]), venue is properly placed in Suffolk County, defendant's designated residence for venue purposes.

Fraud SOL

Gorelick v Vorhand, 2011 NY Slip Op 03207 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"[A] fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it'" (Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d 527, 532, quoting CPLR 213[8]; see CPLR 203[g]; Coombs v Jervier, 74 AD3d 724, 724). "The test as to when a plaintiff should have discovered an alleged fraud is an objective one" (Prestandrea v Stein, 262 AD2d 621, 622; see 2 NY PJI2d 3:20, at 192 [2011]). Thus "plaintiffs will be held to have discovered the fraud when it is established that they were possessed of knowledge of facts from which [the fraud] could be reasonably inferred" (Erbe v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 3 NY2d 321, 326; see Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d at 532; Higgins v Crouse, 147 NY 411, 416; Stride Rite Children's Group v Siegel, 269 AD2d 875, 876; Watts v Exxon Corp., 188 AD2d 74, 76; Azoy v Fowler, 57 AD2d 541, 541-542).

"Ordinarily such an inquiry presents a mixed question of law and fact" (Erbe v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 3 NY2d at 326; see K & E Trading & Shipping v Radmar Trading Corp., 174 AD2d 346; Azoy v Fowler, 57 AD2d 541, 541-542). As a general matter, "knowledge of the fraudulent act is required and mere suspicion will not constitute a sufficient substitute" (Erbe v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 3 NY2d at 326; see Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d at 532).

Where, as here, "it does not conclusively appear that a plaintiff had knowledge of facts from which the fraud could reasonably be inferred, a complaint should not be dismissed on motion and the question should be left to the trier of the facts" (Trepuk v Frank, 44 NY2d 723, 725; see Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d at 532; see Pericon v Ruck, 56 AD3d 635, 636-637; Oggioni v Oggioni, 46 AD3d 646, 648-649; Saphir Intl., SA v UBS PaineWebber Inc., 25 AD3d 315, 316). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred when it, upon reargument, in effect, adhered to so much of the determination in the order entered September 11, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Harry Vorhand which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Milan Vorhand, Harry Vorhand, and Thomas Vorhand as time-barred.

The perils of social networking and other discovery issues

In this case, nothing came of it, but it remains dangerous to those who are unaware. Turk wrote about it too.

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Abrams v Pecile. 2011 NY Slip Op 03108 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

In this action for, among other things, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a former employee of plaintiff's husband, retained, without permission, a copy of a CD containing seminude photographs of plaintiff taken by her husband during their honeymoon. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant refused to return the CD and photographs unless plaintiff's husband paid defendant $2.5 million to settle her sexual harassment claims brought against plaintiff's husband and his brother.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering plaintiff to comply with the outstanding discovery demands. With respect to defendant's demand for access to plaintiff's social networking accounts, no showing has been made that "the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Vyas v Campbell, 4 AD3d 417, 418 [2004][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also McCann v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 78 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2010]). Because plaintiff admits that she has copies of the photographs contained on the subject CD, defendant has also failed to show that she needs access to plaintiff's hard drive in order to defeat plaintiff's conversion claim. Nor has defendant shown that broad discovery concerning plaintiff's finances, education, immigration status, and educational background is "material and necessary" (CPLR 3101[a]).

With respect to defendant's demand for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, defendant has failed to show "substantial need" for the materials or that she is "unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means" (Santariga v McCann, 161 AD2d 320, 321-322 [1990]; see CPLR 3101[d][2]). Further, defendant is not entitled to privileged communications between plaintiff and her prior counsel (see CPLR 4503[a]).

Discovery of materials concerning plaintiff's family and her husband's business should be obtained through nonparty discovery pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4).

Defendant's remaining discovery demands are either overbroad or irrelevant.

JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 03211 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

No appeal lies as of right from an order denying an application to direct a witness to respond to questions posed during the course of a deposition (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d 823, 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318, 320). However, this Court may deem the plaintiffs' notice of appeal from such an order to be an application for leave to appeal, and grant leave to appeal (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d at 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d at 320), and we do so here.

CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Generally, CPLR 3101 is to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 406-407; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70). However, the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Moreover, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's denial of those branches of the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 which were to compel the defendants to disclose certain documentary evidence and its grant of those branches of the defendants' cross motion which were for a protective and confidentiality order as to certain evidence sought through discovery, were provident exercises of its discretion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions, including those referable to their application to compel deposition witnesses to respond to certain questions, are without merit.

Taylor v New York City Hous. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03229 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"[N]o appeal as of right lies from an order directing a party to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial" (Nappi v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 31 AD3d 509, 510-511 see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69). An order deciding "a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right even where it was made upon a full record and on the defendant's motion to compel responses" (Singh v Villford Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 892, 893 [citations omitted]; see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d 386, 387; Cedrone v Bon Secours Community Hosp., 31 AD3d 596). The plaintiffs have not sought leave to appeal, and there is nothing in the record that would warrant granting leave to appeal on the Court's own motion (see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d at 387).

W&W Glass, LLC v 1113 York Ave. Realty Co. LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 02786 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The record fails to support the motion court's determination that defendants' failure to comply with discovery obligations was willful, or in bad faith (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [2010]; Banner v New York City Hous. Auth., 73 AD3d 502 [2010]. Absent such showing, the motion court erred in imposing the "harshest available penalty" against defendants (see Basset v Bando Sangsa Co., 103 AD2d 728, 728 [1984]).

Finally, we note that the record discloses no evidence of defendants' repeated failures to comply with the court's discovery orders. Indeed, there appear to be no prior motions by plaintiff to compel disclosure, rendering any motion to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 premature in this case.

The bold is mine.

Construed against the drafter

Gould Invs., L.P. v Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 2011 NY Slip Op 02844 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Here, the provision of the policy addressing the parties' obligations regarding subrogation provided that, "you must transfer to us all your rights of recovery against any person or organization for any loss you sustained and for which we have paid or settled. You must also do everything necessary to secure those rights and do nothing after loss to impair them." The Supreme Court properly determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of the first sentence of that provision obligated the plaintiff to transfer rights of recovery only upon payment of the claim and that, accordingly, no subrogation rights had accrued to the defendant upon which it could base its motion. As any ambiguity introduced by the second sentence of that provision must be construed against the insurer as drafter of the policy (see Essex Ins. Co. v Laruccia Constr., Inc., 71 AD3d at 818; United States Fire Ins. Co. v Knoller Companies, Inc., 80 AD3d 692), the Supreme Court's determination was proper.

1701 Rest. on Second, Inc. v Armato Props., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 03106 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The parties agree that this Court need look no further than the "clear language" contained in the "four corners" of the agreement, but differ on their interpretation of the asserted clear language. Under the "clear language" rule of contract interpretation, we disregard extrinsic evidence if there is, as the parties agree, no ambiguity, and look only to the language of the agreement (see R/S Assoc. v New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 33 [2002]). Tenant correctly points to language in the 2001 Lease Extension and Modification Agreement stating that, other than as modified by such document, the terms of the 1994 lease "remain in full force and effect." Thus, the clear language of the rider to the 1994 lease directly supports tenant's contention that the renewal option was still in effect and had not been "subsumed" as defendant landlord argues. Landlord fails to direct the court to any clear language in support of its position.

"Ordinarily, a party cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special circumstances, leave to discontinue a cause of action should be granted [unless] the party opposing the motion can demonstrate prejudice if the discontinuance is granted" (see St. James Plaza v Notey, 166 AD2d 439, 439 [1990]). Under the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court correctly denied landlord's motion. Landlord sought to discontinue its counterclaim for declaratory judgment in Supreme Court and then pursue similar relief in Civil Court, notwithstanding that tenant had cross-moved for leave to amend its complaint, which should be freely granted (CPLR 3025[b]), seeking to add a cause of action for declaratory relief related to the same subject matter. Moreover considerable discovery had already occurred in relation to landlord's counterclaim. Thus, it would have been inequitable to allow landlord to discontinue its counterclaim at this point in the litigation (see St James Plaza v Notey at 440).

The bold is mine.