Opinion
6105N.
Decided on November 17, 2011.
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.
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.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
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 AD2d 266). However, defendants are not required to respond to interrogatory number 13, since it is repetitive.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.