Lombardi v. Lombardi
| Decision Date | 27 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2019–08972,Index Nos. 26233/11, 24554/12 |
| Citation | 190 A.D.3d 964,140 N.Y.S.3d 264 |
| Parties | Mary Beth LOMBARDI, respondent, v. Vittorio LOMBARDI, appellant. (Action No. 1) Mary Beth Lombardi, respondent v. Vittorio Lombardi, appellant, et al., defendant. (Action No. 2) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
190 A.D.3d 964
140 N.Y.S.3d 264
Mary Beth LOMBARDI, respondent,
v.
Vittorio LOMBARDI, appellant.
(Action No. 1)
Mary Beth Lombardi, respondent
v.
Vittorio Lombardi, appellant, et al., defendant.
(Action No. 2)
2019–08972
Index Nos. 26233/11, 24554/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—November 9, 2020
January 27, 2021
Law Office of Dorothy A. Courten, PLLC, Hauppauge, NY, for appellant.
Mitev Law Firm, P.C., Port Jefferson, N.Y. (Vesselin Mitev of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, and a related action, inter alia, to set aside a prenuptial agreement, which were joined for trial, Vittorio Lombardi, the defendant in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Deborah Poulos, J.), dated June 18, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied those branches of the motion of Vittorio Lombardi which were pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order striking the notice for discovery and inspection of the plaintiff in Action Nos. 1 and 2, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 to impose sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiff from offering certain evidence at trial, and to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel from representing the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, denying that branch of the motion of Vittorio Lombardi which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order striking the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In 2004, prior to their marriage, the plaintiff and the defendant Vittorio Lombardi (hereinafter the defendant) entered into a prenuptial agreement setting forth their rights and obligations in the event of a divorce. In August 2011, the plaintiff commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In August 2012, the plaintiff commenced a plenary action seeking, inter alia, to set aside the prenuptial agreement on the grounds of duress, coercion, undue influence, and unconscionability. In an order dated March 3, 2016, the two actions were joined for trial.
On January 22, 2019, the plaintiff served a notice for discovery and inspection. On February 25, 2019, the defendant filed an order to show cause seeking, inter alia, that the Supreme Court direct service of his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order striking the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 to impose sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel. On February 26, 2019, the court declined to sign the order to show cause.
Thereafter, the defendant moved, inter alia, for leave to reargue his prior motion, among other things, for a protective order and to impose sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel, and, as additional relief, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiff from offering certain evidence at trial and to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel from representing the plaintiff. The plaintiff opposed the motion. In an order dated June 18, 2019, the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Scurry v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
-
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Carter
...defense of an action." "However, ‘[a] party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure’ " ( Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d 964, 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264, quoting Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 A.D.3d 998, 998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). "Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the Supreme ......
-
Silla v. Silla
... ... and contumacious" ( Maliah-Dupass v Dupass , 166 ... A.D.3d 873, 875 ... [2d Dept 2018]; see also Lombardi v Lombardi , 190 ... A.D.3d 964, 967 [2d Dept 2021]; Ritornato v ... Ritornato , 186 A.D.3d 1422, 1424 [2d Dept 2020]) ... "Willful and ... ...
-
Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.
..."However, ‘[a] party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure’ " ( 159 N.Y.S.3d 875 Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d 964, 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264, quoting Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 A.D.3d 998, 998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 470 ; see Kiernan v. Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 175 A.D.3......
-
Objecting during depositions
...critical evidence concerning a central issue in this matter. The deposition will be ending shortly. CASES Lombardi v. Lombardi , 190 A.D.3d 964, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 (2d Dept. 2021). The plaintiff ’s notice for discovery and inspection was palpably improper in that it was overbroad and burden......
-
Defending discovery's limits
...from an unreasonably long time period or from distant and unrelated locales are impermissibly overbroad. Lombardi v. Lombardi , 190 A.D.3d 964, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2021). A party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure. A notice for......