midpage

Community Development Ass'n v. Warren-Hoffman & Associates, Inc.Community Development Ass'n v. Warren-Hoffman & Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 11, 2004
Versions:4 A.D.3d 755
771 N.Y.S.2d 786
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1443

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Joseph Gerace, J.), entered December 18, 2002. The order denied that part of the motion of defendant Warren-Hoffman & Associates, Inc. seeking to strike the answer of or, in the alternative, to compel production of certain documents by defendant American & Foreign Insurance Company, also known as Royal & Sunalliance.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court “is invested with broad discretion to supervise discovery and to determine what is ‘material and necessary’ as that phrase is used in CPLR 3101 (a)” (NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Group, 192 AD2d 1032, 1033 [1993]), and “only a clear abuse of discretion will prompt appellate action” (Geary v Hunton & Williams, 245 AD2d 936, 938 [1997]; see Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d 887, 888 [2000]). We perceive no such “clear abuse of discretion” in the court’s denial of that part of the motion of defendant Warren-Hoffman & Associates, Inc. (Warren-Hoffman) seeking to strike the answer of or, in the alternative, to compel production of certain documents by defendant American & Foreign Insurance Company, also known as Royal & Sunalliance (American & Foreign). Warren-Hoffman’s second notice for discovery and inspection “seeks information of a confidential and private nature that does not appear to be relevant to the issues in the case” (Saratoga Harness Racing, 274 AD2d at 889; see Hill v Troy Sav. Bank, 185 AD2d 423, 424 [1992]). Warren-Hoffman’s third notice for discovery and inspection not only seeks information of a confidential and private nature, but also is “so overly broad and burdensome as to be palpably improper” (Kern v City of Rochester, 261 AD2d 904, 905 [1999]). Thus, despite its failure to timely object to the third notice, American & Foreign is not barred from challenging its propriety (see id.). Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Community Development Ass'n v. Warren-Hoffman & Associates, Inc.
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Feb 11, 2004
Citations: 4 A.D.3d 755; 771 N.Y.S.2d 786; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1443
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In