Quinones v. 9 E. 69TH St., LLC

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Citation: 18 N.Y.S.3d 106,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07487,132 A.D.3d 750
• Parties: Michael QUINONES, respondent, v. 9 EAST 69th STREET, LLC, et al., defendants, Uberto, Ltd., et al., appellants (and third-party actions).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 750
18 N.Y.S.3d 106
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07487

Michael QUINONES, respondent,
v.
9 EAST 69th STREET, LLC, et al., defendants,
Uberto, Ltd., et al., appellants
(and third-party actions).

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

Oct. 14, 2015.

[18 N.Y.S.3d 107]

Jones Hirsch Connors Miller & Bull P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mark D. Wellman, James P. Connors, and Daniel W. Levin of counsel), for appellants.

Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey B. Bromfeld of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6), the defendants Uberto, Ltd., and Uberto Construction, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered January 30, 2013, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to comply with certain discovery demands, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order as to the information sought in the subject discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101(a)(1) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The terms “material and necessary” in this statute “must ‘be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ” ( Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559, 11 N.E.3d 709 quoting Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430). At the same time, a party is

[18 N.Y.S.3d 108]

“not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure” (Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 A.D.3d 998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 470; see Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124). It is the burden of the party seeking disclosure “ ‘to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims' ” (Vyas v. Campbell, 4 A.D.3d 417, 418, 771 N.Y.S.2d 375, quoting Crazytown Furniture v....