Case Name: New Line Stone Co., Inc., Respondent, v. BCRE Services LLC et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 89 A.D.3d 581
Docket Number: 
Parties: New Line Stone Co., Inc., Respondent, v BCRE Services LLC et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
New Line Stone Co., Inc., Respondent, v BCRE Services LLC et al., Appellants.
[932 NYS2d 690]

Opinion:
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in requiring defendants to provide more detailed responses to plaintiffs interrogatory Nos. 4 through 12, which sought the facts underlying defendants' seven affirmative defenses and three counterclaims. Most of defendants' responses provided general statement of facts, and some responses provided no facts at all. Moreover, defendants failed to meet their burden to establish that the information sought was privileged (see JP Foodservice Distribs. v Sorrento, Inc., 305 AD2d 266 [2003]). However, defendants are not required to respond to interrogatory No. 13, since it is repetitive. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.