Goldstein v Orensanz Events LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Goldstein v Orensanz Events LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 31199(U) June 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651706/2014 Judge: Robert R. Reed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/13/2018 09:33 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 INDEX NO. 651706/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 43 LISA GOLDSTEIN Plaintiff, Index No. 651706/2014 DECISION/ ORDER -againstMotion Seq. 002 ORENSANZEVENTSLLC,ANGELORENSANZ FOUNDATION, INC. and ARBOL 172 CORP. Defendants, ROBERT R. REED, J.: In this action stemming from a rescheduled wedding, plaintiff Lisa Goldstein ("Goldstein") moves, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel defendants Orensanz Events LLC, Angel Orensanz Foundation, Inc. and Arbol 172 Corp. ("Orensanz") to comply with outstanding discovery requests plus attorneys' fees. Orensanz opposes, arguing that the discovery requests are overbroad and improper. Factual Background and Procedural History Orensanz owns and operates an event space. As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff was scheduled to be married in April 2014 at the Orensanz event space, but five days before the chosen date the building was issued a full vacate order by the Department of Buildings due to a structural defect in the building. Goldstein was forced to secure an alternate venue for her wedding, and filed this action to recover the full value of her rental payments plus consequential damages equal to the value of costs related to her rescheduled wedding. This court granted Orensanz' summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint. Goldstein appealed and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the action for further discovery. During the pendency of the appeal, Al Orensanz, one of the principals of Orensanz Events, LLC, died. Goldstein did not have an opportunity to depose Al Orensanz before his death. Subsequently, his brother, Angel Orensanz, assumed sole control of the business here in 2 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/13/2018 09:33 AM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 INDEX NO. 651706/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2018 New York. Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel Orensanz to comply with multiple discovery requests and, pursuant to CPLR 3126, for attorneys' fees and other costs. Defendants oppose. Discovery "Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure and .... [in] limiting or denying discovery, especially when compliance would be unduly burdensome" (see Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952). Here, Goldstein moves, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel (1) a bill of particulars; (2) interrogatories; (3) production of documents and (4) depositions. Orensanz opposes, arguing that CPLR 3130 does not permit all four discovery mechanisms at once in this type of action. Goldstein withdraws the portion of her motion demanding a bill of particulars, however, and argues that CPLR 3130 does not prohibit the use of both depositions and interrogatories in actions rooted in breach of contract. The prohibition against the use of both depositions and interrogatories applies only to actions to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, i.e., in cases predicated solely on a cause of action for negligence (see Buxton v. Ruden, 12 AD3d 475). An action that is not for "personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death" does not fall within the limited scope of CPLR 3130(1) (see id at 4 77). Absent evidence that a party intended to abuse discovery, a court may permit interrogatories and conduct a deposition in the same action, notwithstanding the wording ofCPLR 3130(1) (see Got/in v. City ofNew York, 90 AD3d 605). To the extent that a motion to compel seeks both interrogatories and depositions, a denial, in any event, is within this court's discretion (see O'Hara v. New York City Transit Authority, 248 AD2d 138) Here, as this action is rooted in breach of contract, the motion to compel both interrogatories and a deposition is permissible. This court will exercise its discretion in 3 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/13/2018 09:33 AM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 INDEX NO. 651706/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2018 plaintiffs favor and grant plaintiffs motion to compel both a response to the interrogatories and depositions. Orensanz's counsel indicates that Angel Orensanz, despite being in Paris at the time of the building incident, is available for a deposition. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to compel deposition of Angel Orensanz is granted. Plaintiff also moves to compel discovery of Fire Department ofNew York (FDNY) records related to the closure of the building at issue. An unopposed subpoena seeking these documents was granted in motion sequence 003. Accordingly, this portion of the motion is denied as moot. Finally, Goldstein moves, pursuant to CPLR 3126, for attorney's fees and costs associated with making this motion. The imposition of CPLR 3126 sanctions is within the sound discretion of the court (see Gross v. Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., Inc., 201AD2d390). The court is not prepared to exercise its discretion in favor of ordering attorney's fees and costs on this motion at this time - the record before the court displaying no clear pattern of discovery abuse by defendants. Accordingly, the portion of the motion seeking attorney's fees and costs in association with making this motion is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to comply with outstanding discovery is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further ORDERED that defendants must provide a response to plaintiffs interrogatories within 60 days; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel deposition of Angel Orensanz is granted; and it is further 4 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/13/2018 09:33 AM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 INDEX NO. 651706/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2018 ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to comply with the bill of particulars is denied as moot in light of plaintiffs withdrawal of this request; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to provide all records regarding any FDNY closure of the building is denied as moot, in light of motion sequence number 003; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs request for sanctions and attorney's fees related to the ~ling this motion is denied without prejudice. Dated: June 12, 2018 ENTER: ~~ ~~;=-~ 5 of 5 of

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.