Opinion
6405N Index 650390/14
04-26-2018
STB INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. STERLING & STERLING, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York (Peter J. Biging of counsel), for appellant. Duane Morris LLP, New York (Fran M. Jacobs of counsel), for respondents.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York (Peter J. Biging of counsel), for appellant.
Duane Morris LLP, New York (Fran M. Jacobs of counsel), for respondents.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 21, 2016, which denied in part defendant's motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion when it limited discovery in this action (see generally Wyda v. Makita Elec. Works , 162 A.D.2d 133, 556 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 1990] ). The crux of this dispute is what coverage was offered by defendant to plaintiffs with respect to a demolition project. Thus, as previously stated by this Court on a prior appeal, "[b]ecause all documents ‘concerning insurance coverage for the Demolition Project’ have been produced, there is nothing further to compel" ( 140 A.D.3d 449, 450, 35 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2016] ). The motion court appropriately directed plaintiffs to expand their search term to include the email address for "@sterlingrisk.com," the producer who procured the disputed coverage, and beyond that, defendant has not "established that the line of inquiry they seek to pursue will avail them of any useful information" with respect to plaintiffs' comptroller, plaintiffs' architect, or conversations between plaintiffs' attorney and third parties ( Monica W. v. Milevoi , 252 A.D.2d 260, 264, 685 N.Y.S.2d 231 [1st Dept. 1999] ).