Opinion
05-04-2017
In re Kathleen K. JOHNSON, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND, AG Respondent–Respondent.
The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, New York (Jack S. Dweck of counsel), for appellants. Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, New York (David L. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, New York (Jack S. Dweck of counsel), for appellants.
Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, New York (David L. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2016, which denied petitioners' motion pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) for pre-action disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 29, 2016, which, upon reargument, adhered to the determination on the original motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioners also failed to demonstrate that they have a meritorious cause of action and that the information they seek is "material and necessary to the actionable wrong" (Holzman v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 271 A.D.2d 346, 347, 707 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1st Dept.2000] ). Rather, they seek broad discovery to determine whether they may have a valid cause of action against Union Bank of Switzerland or other possible wrongdoers (see Bishop v. Stevenson Commons Assoc., L.P., 74 A.D.3d 640, 905 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 135160 [2011] ).
Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for pre-action discovery on the ground that, while the motion was pending, petitioners commenced an action, i.e., filed a summons and complaint (see Matter of Goldstein v. New York Daily News, 106 A.D.2d 323, 482 N.Y.S.2d 768 [1st Dept.1984] ). Disclosure may only be obtained under CPLR 3102(c)"[b]efore an action is commenced."
RICHTER, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.