The court previously granted summary judgment on plaintiff's defamation claim, finding him liable for making substantially false statements to a nonprivileged party, and this Court affirmed that decision (see Leffler v Kotick, 187 A.D.3d 543, 543 [1st Dept 2020]). Even if his motion was timely, defendant fails to argue, let alone demonstrate, that plaintiff failed to comply with discovery orders in a willful or contumacious manner (see Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021]; Mangual v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 A.D.3d 212, 212 [1st Dept 2008]).

The court previously granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s defamation claim, finding him liable for making substantially false statements to a nonprivileged party, and this Court affirmed that decision (see Leffler v. Kotick, 187 A.D.3d 543, 543, 130 N.Y.S.3d 663 [1st Dept. 2020]). Even if his motion was timely, defendant fails to argue, let alone demonstrate, that plaintiff failed to comply with discovery orders in a willful or contumacious manner (see Rodney v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2021]; Mangual v. New York City Tr. Auth., 48 A.D.3d 212, 212, 850 N.Y.S.2d 101 [1st Dept. 2008]). Supreme Court providently granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant’s witnesses.

[3] Because Copper’s noncompliance with the notice requirement waived any defense of concurrent causes of delay, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying Talisman’s motion to compel discovery of records referring to or related to causes of delay. [4] Talisman fails to make "a clear showing" that the court improvidently exercised its "broad discretion over the discovery process" (Rodney v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2021]) in denying Talisman’s request for plaintiff’s internal communications regarding plaintiff’s alleged nonpayment of Copper or its subcontractors. We note that plaintiff disclosed other documents pertaining to the same subject matter, and that the court, in a November 1, 2022 order, granted leave for Talisman to make specific discovery requests for any necessary additional documents.

Talisman fails to make "a clear showing" that the court improvidently exercised its "broad discretion over the discovery process" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021]) in denying Talisman's request for plaintiff's internal communications regarding plaintiff's alleged nonpayment of Copper or its subcontractors. We note that plaintiff disclosed other documents pertaining to the same subject matter, and that the court, in a November 1, 2022 order, granted leave for Talisman to make specific discovery requests for any necessary additional documents.

" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021])

Our case law leaves no doubt that "a trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021]; see Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec.Corp. of Am.], 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916 [1979] ["The determination as to the terms and provisions of discovery... rests in the sound discretion of the court to which application is made, subject to review by the intermediate appellate court, here the Appellate Division"]; Gumbs v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P., 114 A.D.3d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2014]["Notwithstanding our own discretion, 'deference is afforded to the trial court's discretionary determinations regarding disclosure'"], quoting Don Buchwald & Assoc. v Marber-Rich, 305 A.D.2d 338, 338 [1st Dept 2003]; Mendez v Equities By Marcy,24 A.D.3d 138, 138 [1st Dept 2005] ["the motion court properly exercised its broad discretion to supervise the discovery process"]; Stambovsky v Reiner, 145 A.D.2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 1988] ["The trial court has broad discretion in supervising discovery in order to prevent harassment and abuse"]). Whether to order plaintiff t

Moreover, respondents' efforts to oust him as manager of the LLCs impeded investment opportunities. "Although discord between the trustee and others involved with the trust, standing alone, is typically an insufficient basis for removal, such conflict may support removal if the conflict thwarts proper administration of the trust or otherwise subverts the purpose of the trust" (Matter of James H. Supplemental Needs Trusts, 172 A.D.3d 1570, 1573 [3d Dept 2019]). For the same reason, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in appointing a temporary additional trustee to facilitate discovery and report to the court. "[A] trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606 [1st Dept 2021]). Contrary to respondents' contentions, Supreme Court did not suspend them as trustees without a hearing; as it stated at the oral argument on August 31, 2021, it merely appointed a temporary additional trustee.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about June 16, 2020, which granted plaintiff Emigrant Bank, as successor-by-merger with Emigrant Savings Bank–Manhattan (Emigrant)’s fourth motion to strike the answer of defendant Secured Lending Corp. (SLC) only to the extent of ordering SLC to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Emigrant in preparing the motion, and otherwise denied the motion as academic, unanimously affirmed, without costs. "It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" ( Rodney v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2021] [citations omitted]). "In monitoring discovery, any sanction levied by a court must be proportionate to the conduct at issue" ( Young v. City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 452, 454, 960 N.Y.S.2d 116 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about June 16, 2020, which granted plaintiff Emigrant Bank, as successor-by-merger with Emigrant Savings Bank-Manhattan (Emigrant)'s fourth motion to strike the answer of defendant Secured Lending Corp. (SLC) only to the extent of ordering SLC to pay reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Emigrant in preparing the motion, and otherwise denied the motion as academic, unanimously affirmed, without costs. "It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021] [citations omitted]). "In monitoring discovery, any sanction levied by a court must be proportionate to the conduct at issue" (Young v City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 452, 454 [1st Dept 2013]).

Talisman fails to make "a clear showing" that the court improvidently exercised its "broad discretion over the discovery process" (Rodney v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2021]) in denying Talisman's request for plaintiffs internal communications regarding plaintiffs alleged nonpayment of Copper or its subcontractors. We note that plaintiff disclosed other documents pertaining to the same subject matter, and that the court, in a November 1, 2022 order, granted leave for Talisman to make specific discovery requests for any necessary additional documents.