Eaton v. Hungerford

• Decision Date: 30 December 2010
• Parties: Faye M. EATON, Jacqueline Siwicki, and Maureen M. Doyle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sylvia HUNGERFORD, Individually and as Special Education Teacher of the Wayne Central School District, et al., Defendants-Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

915 N.Y.S.2d 429
79 A.D.3d 1627

Faye M. EATON, Jacqueline Siwicki, and Maureen M. Doyle, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Sylvia HUNGERFORD, Individually and as Special Education Teacher of the Wayne Central School District, et al., Defendants-Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 30, 2010.

915 N.Y.S.2d 430

Emmelyn Logan-Baldwin, Rochester, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse (Gabrielle Mardany Hope of Counsel), for Defendants-Respondents.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND GREEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

79 A.D.3d 1627

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for allegedly having been harassed based upon their sexual orientation and having been subjected to a hostile work environment. They thereafter made a motion seeking, inter alia, judgment in their favor as a discovery sanction and an interim order transferring defendant Sylvia Hungerford to a different work location pending the outcome of this litigation. By the order in appeal No. 1, Supreme Court granted their motion only to the extent of compelling defendants to respond to specified discovery demands. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to renew and/or reargue parts of the prior motion and they also sought, inter alia, leave to amend the complaint. By the order in appeal No. 2, the court granted plaintiffs' "motion to renew/reargue ... to the limited extent" of conforming the complaint to the proof in certain respects and by ordering defendant Middle School Principal of Wayne Central School District to provide certain information and to submit to a deposition as to the circumstances surrounding the transfer of a certain work colleague of plaintiffs to another work location. We dismiss the appeal from the order in appeal No. 1 to the "limited extent" that the motion for leave to renew/reargue was granted ( see

79 A.D.3d 1628

Loafin' Tree Rest. v. Pardi [Appeal No. 1], 162 A.D.2d 985, 559 N.Y.S.2d 154), and we otherwise affirm the orders in appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of plaintiffs' motion seeking judgment in their favor as a discovery sanction. "It is well settled that the court is vested with broad discretion to control discovery and that the court's determination of discovery issues should be disturbed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion" ( Roswell Park...