Summary
In New Line Stone Co., Inc. v BCRE Servs. LLC (89 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2011]), the Appellate Division, First Department, made it clear that the party who objects to an interrogatory requesting facts in support of an affirmative defense bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is, in fact, privileged.
Summary of this case from Gottwald v. GeragosOpinion
2011-11-17
NEW LINE STONE CO., INC., Plaintiff–Respondent,v.BCRE SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Michael R. Wood of counsel), for appellants.Wilkofsky, Friedman, Karel & Cummins, New York (David B. Karel of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lancelot B. Hewitt, Special Referee), entered April 14, 2011, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to provide detailed responses to plaintiff's interrogatories numbered 4 through 13, unanimously modified, on the facts, to deny the motion only with respect to interrogatory number 13, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in requiring defendants to provide more detailed responses to plaintiff's interrogatories 4 through 12, which sought the facts underlying defendants' seven affirmative defenses and three counterclaims. Most of defendants' responses provided general statement of facts, and some responses provided no facts at all. Moreover, defendants failed to meet their burden to establish that the information sought was privileged ( see JP Foodservice Distribs. v. Sorrento, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 266, 758 N.Y.S.2d 805 [2003] ). However, defendants are not required to respond to interrogatory number 13, since it is repetitive.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.