Opinion
CA 03-01151.
February 11, 2004.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Joseph Gerace, J.), entered December 18, 2002. The order denied that part of the motion of defendant Warren-Hoffman Associates, Inc. seeking to strike the answer of or, in the alternative, to compel production of certain documents by defendant American Foreign Insurance Company, also known as Royal Sunalliance.
LUSTIG BROWN, LLP, BUFFALO (LAURIE A. FRANK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (LISA A. COPPOLA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court "is invested with broad discretion to supervise discovery and to determine what is `material and necessary' as that phrase is used in CPLR 3101(a)" ( NBT Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Group, 192 A.D.2d 1032, 1033), and "only a clear abuse of discretion will prompt appellate action" ( Geary v. Hunton Williams, 245 A.D.2d 936, 938; see Saratoga Harness Racing v. Roemer, 274 A.D.2d 887, 888). We perceive no such "clear abuse of discretion" in the court's denial of that part of the motion of defendant Warren-Hoffman Associates, Inc. (Warren-Hoffman) seeking to strike the answer of or, in the alternative, to compel production of certain documents by defendant American Foreign Insurance Company, also known as Royal Sunalliance (American Foreign). Warren-Hoffman's second notice for discovery and inspection "seeks information of a confidential and private nature that does not appear to be relevant to the issues in the case" ( Saratoga Harness Racing, 274 A.D.2d at 889; see Hill v. Troy Sav. Bank, 185 A.D.2d 423, 424). Warren-Hoffman's third notice for discovery and inspection not only seeks information of a confidential and private nature, but also is "so overly broad and burdensome as to be palpably improper" ( Kern v. City of Rochester, 261 A.D.2d 904, 905). Thus, despite its failure to timely object to the third notice, American Foreign is not barred from challenging its propriety ( see id.).