Buonaccorso v. City of New York

Full title: RONALD J. BUONACCORSO et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 1994

208 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

618 N.Y.S.2d 393

Opinion

October 24, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in supervising discovery (see, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406; Keenan v. Harbor View Health Beauty Spa, 205 A.D.2d 589). Here, the notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27, 1992, was largely duplicative of prior notices. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by striking and vacating the notice (see, e.g., Comstock Co. v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 805, 806-807). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.