Opinion
Nos. 16227 16227A Index No. 157373/18 Case Nos. 2021-03227 2021-03228
06-28-2022
Shane Crandall, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. Doing Business as Equinox Fitness Club Doing Business as Equinox Greenwich Avenue, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Held & Hines, LLP, Brooklyn (Marc Held of counsel), for appellant. LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP, New York (David N. Kittredge of counsel), for respondents.
Held & Hines, LLP, Brooklyn (Marc Held of counsel), for appellant.
LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP, New York (David N. Kittredge of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Oing, González, Scarpulla, Higgitt, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered April 5, 2021 and April 26, 2021, which denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, determined that six years was a sufficient discovery lookback period, and denied plaintiff's request for the legal file from a 2007 lawsuit against defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Equinox Fitness Club d/b/a Equinox, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying as overbroad plaintiff's motion to compel the disclosure of certain records related to all Equinox gyms in New York City (see Forman v Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 661 [2018]). In contrast to the "unified public housing complex" that was the site of the criminal activity in Jacqueline S. v City of New York (81 N.Y.2d 288, 295 [1993]), on which plaintiff relies, Equinox gyms are not party of a unified complex but are single facilities scattered throughout the city's five boroughs.
The court providently found that a six-year lookback period was appropriate and denied plaintiff's motion for disclosure of the legal file from another litigation against Equinox on the grounds that plaintiff appeared to have obtained sufficient material already from that lawsuit and that the events were remote in time.