Reyes v Riverside Park Community (Stage I), Inc.

Reyes v Riverside Park Community (Stage I), Inc. 2008 NY Slip Op 00626 [47 AD3d 599] January 31, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Naomi Reyes, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Jessica Reyes, Appellant,
v
Riverside Park Community (Stage I), Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

—[*1] Madeline Lee Bryer, P.C., New York City (Madeline Lee Bryer and Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant.

Gordon & Silber, P.C., New York City (David Henry Sculnick of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 18, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from in an action for personal injuries, denied plaintiff's motions to strike the answers of defendants, provide a certain discovery, and to impose sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answers was properly denied since there was no showing that defendants' conduct during discovery was willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459 [1987]). Indeed, defendants complied with plaintiff's discovery requests and provided responses pursuant to these requests.

The motion court's determination on the remainder of the discovery order was a provident exercise of discretion. The full disclosure requirement of CPLR 3101 (a) is subject to a test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]), and the documents sought by plaintiff, including, inter alia, the operating budget of the building in which plaintiff's minor daughter was attacked and the contract that the building had with a prior security company, are neither material nor necessary to this action. Furthermore, although the court denied plaintiff's request for defendant RPC Associates to produce a witness for deposition, it did direct RPC to provide an affidavit from one of its partners specifying its responsibilities in relation to the building.

Plaintiff's application for sanctions was appropriately denied where the affirmation of [*2]good faith submitted in support failed to detail the good faith effort to resolve the discovery disputes (22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; see also Cerreta v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 251 AD2d 190 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.