Case Name: In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v. Debra Duminuco, as Assessor of the Town of Webster, et al., Appellants; In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v. Delores Harloff, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants; In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v. Karen Steel, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-06-09
Citations: 216 A.D.2d 950
Docket Number: Appeal No. 1
Parties: In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Debra Duminuco, as Assessor of the Town of Webster, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Delores Harloff, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Karen Steel, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 950–950

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Debra Duminuco, as Assessor of the Town of Webster, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Delores Harloff, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Karen Steel, as Assessor of the Village of Webster, et al., Appellants.
(Appeal No. 1.)
[629 NYS2d 568]

Opinion:
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion by granting petitioner leave to serve a consolidated and amended petition. Respondents failed to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice or surprise and, "[a]bsent prejudice or surprise resulting from delay, motions to amend pleadings should be freely granted" (Ramundo v Town of Guilderland, 108 AD2d 995, 996).
We also conclude that the court's denial of respondents' motion seeking disclosure was not an abuse of the broad discretion with which trial courts are vested in supervising disclosure (see, Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 AD2d 914, 915). Because this proceeding was commenced pursuant to RPTL article 7, disclosure is governed by CPLR 408, which requires leave of court. The record reveals that respondents' disclosure request sought information that is no longer material and necessary to the litigation (see, CPLR 3101 [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Amend Petition.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.