From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacelli v. Peter L. Cedeno & Assocs., P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

Index No. 158224/16 Appeal No. 13400 Case No. 2020-04502

03-23-2021

Atesa Pacelli et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Peter L. Cedeno & Associates, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP, Brooklyn (Justin T. Kelton of counsel), for appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Jamie R. Wozman of counsel), for respondents.


Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP, Brooklyn (Justin T. Kelton of counsel), for appellants.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Jamie R. Wozman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 9, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion to compel defendants to respond to certain interrogatories as well as a document request, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that that the discovery sought by plaintiffs was not material and necessary to the prosecution of their tort claims (see generally CPLR 3101[a]; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). Plaintiffs were not entitled to discovery regarding prior alleged misconduct because their claim for violation of New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law is premised on rape, and animus is inherent in rape (see Breest v Haggis, 180 AD3d 83, 94 [1st Dept 2019]). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, they are not entitled to information merely because it relates to nonmaterial factual allegations in their complaint, which are unrelated to any element of their claims. It is the alleged coercive representations that were made in the text messages at issue that are relevant, not the underlying conduct. Further, plaintiffs have not shown a basis for seeking defendant's travel documents at this time, as plaintiff has not alleged that defendant Cedeno claimed that he was unavailable for a conference due to travel.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 23, 2021


Summaries of

Pacelli v. Peter L. Cedeno & Assocs., P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Pacelli v. Peter L. Cedeno & Assocs., P.C.

Case Details

Full title:Atesa Pacelli et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Peter L. Cedeno …

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 2021

Citations

2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)