Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

ITO v. DRYVIT SYSTEMS, INC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Mar 29, 2004
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised" ( Provident Life and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 284 A.D.2d 518). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in this case in denying the plaintiff's motion to compel. However, the plaintiff may, if he be so advised, serve a new demand tailored to the component or components actually installed.

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.