Reilly Green Mountain Platform Tennis v. CorteseReilly Green Mountain Platform Tennis v. Cortese
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999] [citations omitted]; see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the production of documents (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contention has been rendered academic.
Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.