Opinion
February 4, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.).
Defendants now assert as an affirmative defense that plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. Parties generally have a duty to mitigate damages (Saboundjian v. Bank Audi, 157 A.D.2d 278), the satisfaction of which generally presents an issue of fact (see, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Premium Coal Oil Co., 19 A.D.2d 613). Plaintiffs had the burden of showing on their motion that the defense of failure to mitigate is inadequate on its face (Manniello v. Dea, 92 A.D.2d 426), a burden that they did not meet. We have considered each of the plaintiffs' arguments on this point, and find them to be without merit. Referral of all discovery issues to a special master was appropriate, given sharply controverted facts (see, Belle v. Chromalloy Am. Corp., 51 A.D.2d 933). We do not find it necessary to decide at this time whether the disputed discovery requests seek relevant information.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.