Opinion
2015-05-12
Deidre L. HARGROVE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. RIVERBAY CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent, John Doe, etc., et al., Defendants.
C. Robinson & Associates, LLC, New York (W. Charles Robinson of counsel), for appellant. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondent.
C. Robinson & Associates, LLC, New York (W. Charles Robinson of counsel), for appellant. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, DeGRASSE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered October 24, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for reargument, and upon reargument, inter alia, vacated that portion of the court's December 5, 2012 decision and order which had directed defendants to provide plaintiff with the names and last known address of all of its employees on July 24, 2004, and with authorizations for payroll tax records for 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting defendant's motion for reargument on the basis that it had overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts concerning the breadth of the discovery sought by plaintiff ( see e.g. Corporan v. Dennis, 117 A.D.3d 601, 986 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept.2014]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 27, 588 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept.1992], lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 80 N.Y.2d 1005, 592 N.Y.S.2d 665, 607 N.E.2d 812 [1992]; CPLR 2221[d] ). Plaintiff provided no conceivable justification for the extremely broad discovery request, which was not material and necessary to the prosecution of her slip and fall claim, and would be unduly burdensome ( see Pecile v. Titan Capital Group, LLC, 113 A.D.3d 526, 979 N.Y.S.2d 303 [1st Dept. 2014]; 40 Rector Holdings, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 40 A.D.3d 482, 483, 836 N.Y.S.2d 173 [1st Dept.2007].
Plaintiff's request for defendant's payroll tax records for 2004 was also not material and necessary for the prosecution of her claims, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong showing of overriding necessity to overcome the confidentiality of such information ( see Editel, N.Y. v. Liberty Studios, 162 A.D.2d 345, 346, 557 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept.1990]; Lukowsky v. Shalit, 160 A.D.2d 641, 642, 559 N.Y.S.2d 259 [1st Dept.1990] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.