Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2010
• Parties: Stephen RAVNIKAR, plaintiff-appellant, v. SKYLINE CREDIT-RIDE, INC., respondent; James Orozco, nonparty-appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

913 N.Y.S.2d 339
79 A.D.3d 1118

Stephen RAVNIKAR, plaintiff-appellant,
v.
SKYLINE CREDIT-RIDE, INC., respondent;
James Orozco, nonparty-appellant.

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

Dec. 28, 2010.

913 N.Y.S.2d 340

Robert Prignoli, Staten Island, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant and nonparty-appellant.

Blank Rome, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harris N. Cogan and Jeremy Reiss of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

79 A.D.3d 1118

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff and nonparty James Orozco appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated July 8, 2008, which, among other things, denied those branches of the plaintiff's cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the production of certain documents and pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint, and determined the defendant's motion with respect to the issue of contempt, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated December 5, 2008, as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew his prior cross motion, and the plaintiff appeals from (3) an order of the same court dated December 29, 2008, which denied his motion to strike the defendant's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 and for summary judgment. By decision and order dated March 16, 2010, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for clarification of the order dated July 8, 2008, with respect to the issue of contempt, and the appeals were held in abeyance in the interim ( see

79 A.D.3d 1119

Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 859, 895 N.Y.S.2d 866). The Supreme Court has filed its report. Justice Florio has been substituted for former Justice Howard Miller ( see 22 NYCRR 670.1[c] ).

ORDERED that the orders dated July 8, 2008, and December 5, 2008, are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 29, 2008, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to compel production of certain documents. The Supreme Court has broad discretion to supervise disclosure to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice ( see CPLR 3103[a]; Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y.2d 940, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649, 343 N.E.2d 288; Byck v. Byck, 294 A.D.2d 456, 743 N.Y.S.2d 126; Eber Bros. Wine & Liq. Corp. v. Ribowsky, 266 A.D.2d 499, 698 N.Y.S.2d 725). The...