Rodriguez v. Metro. Cable Commc'n

• Decision Date: 14 December 2010
• Citation: 913 N.Y.S.2d 292,79 A.D.3d 841
• Parties: David RODRIGUEZ, etc., plaintiff-respondent, v. METROPOLITAN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, appellant, Time Warner Cable of New York City, etc., defendant-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

913 N.Y.S.2d 292
79 A.D.3d 841

David RODRIGUEZ, etc., plaintiff-respondent,
v.
METROPOLITAN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, appellant,
Time Warner Cable of New York City, etc., defendant-respondent.

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

Dec. 14, 2010.

913 N.Y.S.2d 293

Arnold Davis, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Asher, Gaughran, LLP, Katonah, N.Y. (Rachel Asher of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

79 A.D.3d 841

In a putative class action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law article 19, the defendant Metropolitan Cable Communications

79 A.D.3d 842

appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated February 25, 2010, which denied its motion for a protective order striking certain interrogatories and document requests.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Cable Communications

913 N.Y.S.2d 294

which was for a protective order striking document request number 5 from the plaintiff's second request for the production of documents and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Cable Communications which was to strike interrogatory number 1 from the plaintiff's second set of interrogatories, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion to the extent of deleting from that interrogatory the language, "or any position with similar duties and responsibilities as technician supervisors"; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." The appropriateness of a discovery demand is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Andon v. 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 747, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589; Wander v. St. John's Univ., 67 A.D.3d 904, 905, 888 N.Y.S.2d 412; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124), and absent an improvident exercise of discretion, this Court generally will uphold a trial court's discovery determination ( see Wander v. St. John's Univ., 67 A.D.3d at 905, 888 N.Y.S.2d 412; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc....