Opinion
2014-07-2
ARCHSTONE, formerly known as Archstone–Smith Operating Trust, et al., respondents, v. TOCCI BUILDING CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., appellant, Perkins Eastman Architects, Inc., et al., defendants (and third-party actions).
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, N.Y. (Rachel J. Welch, James Davies, Sophia Ree, and Dawn F. Konigsberg of counsel), for appellant. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Robert L. Crewdson, pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents.
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, N.Y. (Rachel J. Welch, James Davies, Sophia Ree, and Dawn F. Konigsberg of counsel), for appellant. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Robert L. Crewdson, pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents.
Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael T. Rogers, Douglas J. Lutz, and Priya Swaminathan of counsel), for defendant Perkins Eastman Architects, Inc.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Tocci Building Corporation of New Jersey, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered December 5, 2011, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 for leave to renew its prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiffs to comply with certain document disclosure requests, which had been denied in an order dated July 22, 2010.
ORDERED that the order entered December 5, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Tocci Building Corporation of New Jersey, Inc. (hereinafter Tocci), for leave to renew its prior motion to compel disclosure related to a development project. While the evidence submitted on the motion to renew was unavailable at the time of the original motion, it did not contain new facts that would have changed the prior determination that the requested disclosure was not material and necessary to Tocci's defense of the action ( seeCPLR 2221[e][2], 3101[a]; Andon v. 302–304 Mott St. Assocs., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 746, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589;Hackney v. Monge, 103 A.D.3d 844, 960 N.Y.S.2d 176;Bhoj v. Bargold Storage Sys., LLC, 303 A.D.2d 437, 755 N.Y.S.2d 890). DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.