Majority
In an action, inter alia, to
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“The Supreme Court has broad discretion to supervise disclosure to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice” (Ravnikar v Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 79 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2010]; see Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 998 [2011]). “Discovery demands that are overly broad, are lacking in specificity, or seek irrevelant documents are improper” (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Librizzi, 106 AD3d 921 , 921 [2013]; see Conte v County of Nassau, 87 AD3d 559 , 560 [2011]). Here, the plaintiff’s discovery demands were overly broad and unduly burdensome, and sought a large number of documents that were irrevelant to his remaining causes of action (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Librizzi, 106 AD3d at 921-922 ; Taji Communications, Inc. v Bronxville Towers Apts. Corp., 48 AD3d 551 , 552 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were to extend the time to complete discovery and compel the defendants to respond to his discovery demands. Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc. 79 AD3d 1118 at 1119 p. 766
- Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center 83 AD3d 998 p. 766
- New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Librizzi 106 AD3d 921 at 921 p. 766
- Conte v. County of Nassau 87 AD3d 559 at 560 p. 766
- Taji Communications, Inc. v. Bronxville Towers Apartments Corp. 48 AD3d 551 at 552 p. 766