Opinion
2002-08970, 2002-09884, 2003-01256.
Decided May 17, 2004.
In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated August 14, 2002, which denied his motion to restore Action No. 1 to the trial calendar, (2), as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the same court (Milano, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which, among other things, denied those branches of his motion which were to direct the defendants in Action No. 1 to respond to interrogatories and to strike their answer and granted that branch of their cross motion which was to vacate the interrogatories served upon them, and (3), as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the same court also dated September 6, 2002, which, inter alia, denied those branches of his motion which were to direct the defendants in Action No. 2 to respond to interrogatories and to strike their answer and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants in Action No. 2 which was to vacate the interrogatories served upon them.
Arthur T. Botsas, Bellerose, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Steven K. Matione, Malverne, N.Y., for respondents Abraham C. Grossman and Joseph Moskowitz, d/b/a Lyden Nursing Home in Action No. 1.
Kaufman, Borgeest Ryan, New York, N.Y. (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), for respondent Western Queens Community Hospital in Action No. 2.
Anthony Matturo, Carle Place, N.Y. for respondents Amina K. Merchant and Emanuel Kouroupos in Action No. 2.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated September 6, 2002, are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to restore one of two related actions to the trial calendar pending completion of discovery in the companion action ( see Small v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 306 A.D.2d 269; Maragos v. Getty Petroleum Corp., 303 A.D.2d 652).
The interrogatories submitted to the defendants in these companion actions, which contained multiple subparts and references to other documents, were patently overbroad and improper ( see EIFS, Inc. v. Morie Co., Inc., 298 A.D.2d 548; Bettan v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 296 A.D.2d 469, 471). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff's motions which were to compel the defendants to respond to the interrogatories and to strike their answers and vacated the interrogatories ( see Mangiapane v. Brookhaven Beach Health Related Facility, 305 A.D.2d 642; Mabey v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 302 A.D.2d 371; Bettan v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.