Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joann Neal and Kenneth Neal v. Spitz & Peck Floral Decorators

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 2, 2011

JOANN NEAL AND KENNETH NEAL,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
SPITZ & PECK FLORAL DECORATORS,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.),

Per curiam.

Neal v Spitz & Peck Floral Decorators

Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on March 2, 2011

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Torres, JJ

entered June 10, 2010, which denied their motion for a protective order and granted, in part, defendant's cross motion to compel discovery.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 10, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal absent demonstrated abuse of that discretion (see Downing v Moskowits, 58 AD3d 671 [2009]; Gillen v Utica First Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 647 [2007]; Ulico v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]).

Here, Civil Court balanced the parties' interestsand determined that defendant had provided sufficient answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories, but required plaintiffs to supplement their responses to defendant's interrogatories and to appear for depositions, therewith denying plaintiffs' request for a protective order (CPLR 3103[a]). Upon our review of the record, Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see Downing v Moskowits, supra; Cach, LLC v Juanico, 28 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51544[U] [2010]).

Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Decision Date: March 02, 2011

20110302

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.