Legal Opinion
Clark v. Halmar Equities, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 25, 2011PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the supervision of discovery, and its determination will not be *941disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Congel v Malfitano, 84 AD3d 1145 [2011]; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants’ compliance with their discovery demands. Mastro, J.P, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- 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
- Congel v. MalfitanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gould v. DecolatorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Matter of Harriman Estates at Aquebogue, LLC v. Town of RiverheadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Daniels v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- ATC Healthcare, Inc. v. Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Daniels v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.