Neal v Spitz & Peck Floral Decorators

[*1] Neal v Spitz & Peck Floral Decorators 2011 NY Slip Op 50292(U) Decided on March 2, 2011 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 2, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570644/10.

Joann Neal and Kenneth Neal, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

against

Spitz & Peck Floral Decorators, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 10, 2010, which denied their motion for a protective order and granted, in part, defendant's cross motion to compel discovery.

Per Curiam.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 10, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal absent demonstrated abuse of that discretion (see Downing v Moskowits, 58 AD3d 671 [2009]; Gillen v Utica First Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 647 [2007]; Ulico v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]).

Here, Civil Court balanced the parties' interestsand determined that defendant had provided sufficient answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories, but required plaintiffs to supplement their responses to defendant's interrogatories and to appear for depositions, therewith denying plaintiffs' request for a protective order (CPLR 3103[a]). Upon our review of the record, Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see Downing v Moskowits, supra; Cach, LLC v Juanico, 28 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51544[U] [2010]).

Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 02, 2011