Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh
Cases that cite this one
59 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Sharf (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Cable Communications (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- McAlwee v. Westchester Health Assoc., PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Levenson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Gould v. Decolator (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Ramirez v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Quinones v. 9 East 69th Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Buxbaum v. Castro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v. Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund 2005, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Accent Collections, Inc. v. Cappelli Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Peluso v. Red Rose Restaurant, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Reilly Green Mountain Platform Tennis v. Cortese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Harrington v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Demirayak v. Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Hamed v. Alas Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Board of Mgrs. of Fishkill Woods Condominium v. Gottlieb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Pascual v. Rustic Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Kayantas v. Restaurant Depot, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Asphalt Maintenance Servs. Corp. v. Oneil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Arch Ins. Co. v. Delric Constr. Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Mendives v. Curcio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Kiernan v. Booth Mem. Med. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 21, 2006, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to certain discovery demands and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion which was for a protective order as to those demands.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in pertinent part, “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” However, the principle of “full disclosure” does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure, and the trial courts have “broad power to regulate discovery to prevent abuse” (Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873, 874 [1980]).
It is well settled that “[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999]; see Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200 [1991]). Here, the plaintiffs document demands at issue were palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant and/or confidential information, or were overbroad and burdensome. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to the contested discovery demands and in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for a protective order with respect to the contested demands (see Astudillo v St. Francis-Beacon Extended Care Facility, Inc., 12 AD3d 469 [2004]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.