Opinion
12-09-2015
David B. JACOBS, appellant, v. Michael H. MOSTOW, et al., respondents.
David B. Jacobs, Dix Hills, N.Y., appellant pro se.
David B. Jacobs, Dix Hills, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered June 24, 2014, as denied those branches of his motion which were to extend the time to complete discovery and compel the defendants to respond to his discovery demands.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“The Supreme Court has broad discretion to supervise disclosure to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice” (Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit–Ride, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 913 N.Y.S.2d 339; see Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 A.D.3d 998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 470). “Discovery demands that are overly broad, are lacking in specificity, or seek irrelevant documents are improper” (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Librizzi, 106 A.D.3d 921, 921, 965 N.Y.S.2d 183; see Conte v. County of Nassau, 87 A.D.3d 559, 560, 929 N.Y.S.2d 742). Here, the plaintiff's discovery demands were overly broad and unduly burdensome, and sought a large number of documents that were irrelevant to his remaining causes of action (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Librizzi, 106 A.D.3d at 921–922, 965 N.Y.S.2d 183; Taji Communications, Inc. v. Bronxville Towers Apts. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 551, 552, 849 N.Y.S.2d 890). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to extend the time to complete discovery and compel the defendants to respond to his discovery demands.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur.