Norfolk Dev. LLC v Kee

[*1] Norfolk Dev. LLC v Kee 2012 NY Slip Op 50846(U) Decided on May 10, 2012 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 10, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570185/09.

Norfolk Development LLC, Petitioner-Landlord- Cross-Respondent,

against

Elizabeth Kee a/k/a Rita Elizabeth Respondent-Tenant-Respondent- Cross-Appellant, -and- Renato Stabile, "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondents.

Landlord, as limited by its briefs, appeals from (1) that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated November 15, 2011, which denied its motion to strike tenant's answer in a holdover summary proceeding, and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated November 14, 2011, which denied landlord's motion to stay the trial of the proceeding pending the determination of the aforesaid motion. Tenant cross-appeals from so much of the November 15, 2011 order as precluded her from introducing certain classes of documents at trial and denied her cross motion for Rule 130 sanctions.

Per Curiam.
Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated November 15, 2011, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated November 14, 2011, dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

A trial court is vested with broad discretion to supervise discovery, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent a demonstrated abuse of that discretion (see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486 [2009]). We cannot conclude on this record that the court's carefully tailored preclusion order issued against tenant was an insufficient sanction for any withholding of documents that may have occurred.

Tenant's cross appeal, not having been briefed, is deemed abandoned.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 10, 2012