Opinion
November 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in directing preaction disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) inasmuch as petitioner established that it likely has causes of action against respondent for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and breach of contract ( see, Matter of Murjani v. Ming, 155 A.D.2d 290) and since the information sought was material and necessary to petitioner's framing of a complaint ( see, Matter of Houlihan-Parnes, Realtors [Cantor, Fitzgerald Co.], 58 A.D.2d 629; Teall v. Roeser, 206 App. Div. 371). Nor did the court err in directing that severance payments to respondent be made into court since the court possessed "`inherent plenary power to * * * fashion any remedy necessary for the proper administration of justice'" ( Cane v. Herman, 209 A.D.2d 368, quoting People ex rel. Doe v. Beaudoin, 102 A.D.2d 359, 363). The disputed directive we note actually benefits respondent, inasmuch as petitioner had previously stopped paying respondent pursuant to the subject severance agreement.
We have reviewed respondent's other claims and find them to be unavailing.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.