From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cabellero v. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2005-02309.

February 26, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 17, 2004, which denied her motion to compel the defendant City of New York to provide copies of all contracts and records relating to a certain capital project.

John Chambers, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Perry D. Silver of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow, Jacob Levin, and John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised" ( Provident Life Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham, 284 AD2d 518, 518; see Olexa v Jacobs, 36 AD3d 776, 777; Setsuo Ito v Dryvit Sys., 5 AD3d 735). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) to provide copies of all contracts and records relating to a certain capital project. The record reveals that the City had complied with a prior order directing it to make available for inspection, at either the office of the corporation counsel or the appropriate City agency, "[c]ontracts and all related contract documents (i.e. progress reports)" for two years prior to and including the date of the occurrence. Furthermore, the production of copies of all relevant contracts and records should not be compelled to the extent that they are available as a matter of public record ( see Public Officers Law §§ 86, 87; Blagrove v Cox, 294 AD2d 526; Penn Palace Operating v Two Penn Plaza Assoc., 215 AD2d 231; Matter of Beryl, 118 AD2d 705, 707).


Summaries of

Cabellero v. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Cabellero v. City

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIA CABELLERO, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 26, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1693
853 N.Y.S.2d 165

Citing Cases

Encalada v. Riverside Retail, LLC

The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise…

Vandercar v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R. (In re Metro-N. Train Accident of Feb. 3, 2015)

"The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within…