Grems v. City of Oneida

Full title: ROBERT L. GREMS et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF ONEIDA et al., Defendants…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 21, 1994

206 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

614 N.Y.S.2d 942

Opinion

July 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Madison County (Tait, Jr., J.).

Mikoll, J.P.

Defendant Ford Motor Company agreed to respond to plaintiffs' interrogatories upon plaintiffs' service of an earlier order to disclose, never moved pursuant to CPLR 3133 to strike any of plaintiffs' demands and never denied possession, custody, control or availability of the sought-after documents. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly ruled that Ford had waived the right to object and granted plaintiffs' second motion to compel production of documents (see, CPLR 3133 [a]).

Ford's failure to move to strike the interrogatories foreclosed inquiry into the propriety of the information sought (see, County of Chemung v. Fenwal, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 551, 552; Long Is. Region Natl. Assn. for Advancement of Colored People v. Town of N. Hempstead, 94 A.D.2d 789). The grant or denial of discovery is a discretionary matter which will not be interfered with absent abuse of that discretion. Finding no abuse, Supreme Court's order granting plaintiffs' motion is deemed proper. We also find no basis to disturb Supreme Court's order denying Ford's renewal motion.

Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs.