Legal Opinion
Buxbaum v. Castro
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 15, 2011PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” However, the principle of “full disclosure” does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [20073; see Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. WalshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Peluso v. Red Rose Restaurant, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Reilly Green Mountain Platform Tennis v. CorteseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by6 opinions
- D'Adamo v. Saint Dominic's HomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Malitz Family Trust.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Morizio v. RoederNew York Supreme Court · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.