From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 23, 2013
102 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-01-23

Edward MONTALVO, et al., appellants, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., respondent, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).

Kujawski & Kujawski, Deer Park, N.Y. (Bryan P. Kujawski of counsel), for appellants. McAndrew Conboy & Prisco, Melville, N.Y. (Mary C. Azzaretto of counsel), for respondent.



Kujawski & Kujawski, Deer Park, N.Y. (Bryan P. Kujawski of counsel), for appellants. McAndrew Conboy & Prisco, Melville, N.Y. (Mary C. Azzaretto of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated September 27, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., for a protective order with respect to certain discovery demands.

ORDERED that the resettled order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” However, “unlimited disclosure is not mandated, and the rules provide that the court may issue a protective order ‘denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device’ to ‘prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts' ” ( County of Suffolk v. Long Is. Power Auth., 100 A.D.3d 944, 946, 954 N.Y.S.2d 619, quoting CPLR 3103[a]; see Accent Collections, Inc. v. Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 1283, 924 N.Y.S.2d 545). “The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” ( Mattocks v. White Motor Corp., 258 A.D.2d 628, 629, 685 N.Y.S.2d 764 [citation omitted]; see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124).

Here, the plaintiffs' discovery demands at issue were palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant information, or were overbroad and burdensome. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., for a protective order with respect to the subject discovery demands ( see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d at 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124;Astudillo v. St. Francis–Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 469, 470, 784 N.Y.S.2d 645).


Summaries of

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 23, 2013
102 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Edward MONTALVO, et al., appellants, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., respondent, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 23, 2013

Citations

102 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
958 N.Y.S.2d 459
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 313

Citing Cases

Troshin v. Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc.

"The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the…

Ramirez v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the disclosure of the unredacted report…