A judgment was entered upon the orders on August 26, 2014. "The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputes" ( Clarke v. Clarke, 113 A.D.3d 646, 646, 979 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; see H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018, 7 N.Y.S.3d 462 ). A court may strike a party's pleading or impose some other sanction if the party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" ( CPLR 3126 ; see Wolf v. Flowers, 122 A.D.3d 728, 728โ729, 996 N.Y.S.2d 169 ).
"The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputes" (Clarke v Clarke, 113 AD3d 646, 646; see H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 AD3d 1018). A court may strike a party's pleading or impose some other sanction if the party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126; see Wolf v Flowers, 122 AD3d 728, 728-729).
โThe Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputesโ ( Clarke v. Clarke, 113 A.D.3d 646, 646, 979 N.Y.S.2d 124; see H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018, 7 N.Y.S.3d 462). A court may strike a party's pleading or impose some other sanction if the party โrefuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosedโ (CPLR 3126; see Wolf v. Flowers, 122 A.D.3d 728, 728โ729, 996 N.Y.S.2d 169).
. (H.P.S. Management Company Inc., v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 127: A.D.3d 1018, 7 N.Y.S.3d 462 [2d Dept., 2015]).
Responses to discovery demands should be produced in the manner that the documents were kept in the regular course of business and be labeled to correspond to the categories in the defendants' demands. (see H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018 [2d Dept 2018]). Discovery should be provided in a manner that allows the opposing party "'to know and understand' which documents apply to their separate discovery demands."
C.P.L.R. ยง 3122(c); H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 2015).
Pursuant to CPLR 3122(c), "[w]henever a person is required . . . to produce documents for inspection, that person shall produce them as they are kept in the regular course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request." Since the plaintiff did not produce documents in this fashion, it was not in compliance with its discovery obligations at the time it filed the note of issue, and must now organize and label the relevant documents in accordance with the statute (see H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 AD3d 1018 [2d Dept 2015]). Moreover, a party cannot unilaterally deem its adversary to have waived the right to conduct a deposition where, as here, the parties had three more months before the discovery deadline passed, and the party is on notice that there remained several disputed discovery issues.
The, production shall enable defendants to locate the documents corresponding to each application and to verify that the production is a complete and accurate response to defendants' requests. C.P.L.R. ยง 3122(c); H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 2015). See Whitley v. Industrial Funding Corp., 8 A.D.3d 963, 963 (4th Dep't 2004).
This clause tracks CPLR 3122(c) which provides: "Whenever a person is required pursuant to such notice or order to produce documents for inspection, that person shall produce them as they are kept in the regular course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request." (See, H.P.S. Mgmt. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 AD3d 1018.) The defendants in this case did not comply with the conditional discovery order.
"The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputes." (H.P.S. Management Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 1018, 7 N.Y.S.3d 462 [2nd Dept. 2015]), Clarke v. Clarke, 113 A.D.3d 646 [2nd Dept. 2014]).