STB Invs. Corp. v Sterling & Sterling, Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 26, 2018
Mazzarelli, J.P., Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, Singh, JJ.
6405N 650390/14
[*1] STB Investments Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v
Sterling & Sterling, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York (Peter J. Biging of counsel), for appellant.
Duane Morris LLP, New York (Fran M. Jacobs of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 21, 2016, which denied in part defendant's motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion when it limited discovery in this action (see generally Wyda v Makita Elec. Works, 162 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1990]). The crux of this dispute is what coverage was offered by defendant to plaintiffs with respect to a demolition project. Thus, as previously stated by this Court on a prior appeal, "[b]ecause all documents concerning insurance coverage for the Demolition Project' have been produced, there is nothing further to compel" (140 AD3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2016]). The motion court appropriately directed plaintiffs to expand their search term to include the email address for "@sterlingrisk.com," the producer who procured the disputed coverage, and beyond that, defendant has not "established that the line of inquiry they seek to pursue will avail them of any useful information" with respect to plaintiffs' comptroller, plaintiffs' architect, or conversations between plaintiffs' attorney and third parties (Monica W. v Milevoi, 252 AD2d 260, 264 [1st Dept 1999]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: APRIL 26, 2018
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
