Court Opinion

ID: 9940672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:09:38.727148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:20.125998
License: Public Domain

Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC v Lexington Ins. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30449(U)
                    February 9, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650043/2019
                Judge: Nancy M. Bannon
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650043/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. NANCY M. BANNON                                            PART                              42
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          650043/2019
             RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 OWNER LLC,RIVERSIDE
             CENTER 5 MEZZ LLC,EL AD RIVERSIDE LLC,RIVERSIDE                                     MOTION DATE         10/31/2023
             CENTER 5 HOLDCO LLC,SILVERSTEIN RIVERSIDE
             HOLDING COMPANY LLC,EL AD US HOLDING INC.,                                          MOTION SEQ. NO.         009

                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 -v-
             LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, STARR SURPLUS                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, HOUSTON CASUALTY                                                   MOTION
             COMPANY, ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISK US INSURANCE
             COMPANY, ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 233, 234, 235, 236,
            237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      DISCOVERY                         .

                      In this action seeking, inter alia, indemnification in the sum of $31,285,539.24 for water
            damage at a construction site, a central issue is the cause and extent of construction delays.
            The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint for failure to disclose
            requested communications during discovery and to comply with court-ordered disclosure (MOT
            SEQ 008). By an order dated July 17, 2023, the court found that the plaintiffs, Riverside Center
            Site 5 Owner LLC et al (Riverside) were recalcitrant in failing to turn over certain
            communications between plaintiffs and their construction manager, Tishman Construction Corp.
            of New York (Tishman), “which identify and discuss various sources of project delays unrelated
            to the [subject loss], [which are] highly relevant, as they go to the crux of the parties’ dispute.
            Plaintiffs plainly should have produced these communications over three years ago in response
            to defendants’ initial document demands, or at any point thereafter in compliance with the
            court’s numerous discovery orders.” The court found that the plaintiffs’ “conduct clearly
            warrants sanctions.”

             650043/2019 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY                                     Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 009

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 650043/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                    The court further held that while the plaintiffs did produce over 19,000 other
            communications between themselves and Tishman that generally concern delays, the
            undisclosed communications “appear to be far more specific in detailing the causes and
            quantifying the extent” of the various delays and “are thus far more damaging to plaintiffs’ case.”
            While declining to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint, the court granted the defendants’ motion to the
            extent of striking the Note of Issue and directing that “plaintiffs shall pay defendants discovery
            costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees for all discovery conducted thus far in the litigation
            as well as all future discovery, without prejudice.” The court held that the “defendants shall be
            given an opportunity to conduct additional depositions limited to the matters raised in the
            Undisclosed Communications” and directed the parties to appear for a status conference to set
            a schedule for completion of that discovery.

                   The August 10, 2023, status conference directs the completion of five depositions on or
            before October 30, 2023, and sets the new Note of Issue filing deadline as December 31, 2023.
            The court denied the defendants’ request for additional time to serve additional discovery
            demands, by deleting that request on the proposed order. The next status conference order,
            dated November 16, 2023, extends to December 15, 2023, the time for completing two
            remaining depositions. The Note of Issue deadline remained as December 31, 2023, and no
            further discovery was directed. In the final status conference order dated December 21, 2023,
            the court noted that only one deposition remained outstanding and all other discovery was
            complete or waived. The court also cautioned the parties of the rule that that there shall be “no
            post-note discovery absent unusual or unanticipated circumstances (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]).”
            The plaintiffs filed a Note of Issue on December 28, 2023.

                    In the meantime, on October 3, 2023, the defendants had filed the instant motion
            seeking to compel the plaintiffs to provide further document discovery, ie. documents
            exchanged between parties in a related action commenced by plaintiff Riverside against
            Tishman prior to this action, concerning the same project at issue here, which actin was
            discontinued in 2018 (Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC v Tishman Construction Corporation
            of New York, Index No. 656364/2017) (MOT SEQ 009). A second action was filed under Index
            No. 652700/2020 and is currently pending before a different Justice of this court. In those two
            actions, Riverside alleged, inter alia, that Tishman caused construction delays.

             650043/2019 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY                   Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 009

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 650043/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                    In their instant motion papers, the defendants seek “all written discovery responses,
            deposition transcripts and expert reports (with exhibits) exchanged in Riverside’s related action
            against Tishman.” The defendants requested this discovery, and more, in their discovery
            demands dated July 20, 2020, and August 24, 2023. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.

                   While, as this court has cautioned the parties, there can be no post-note discovery
            absent demonstrated unusual or unanticipated circumstances (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d[), this
            case presents such unusual circumstances, warranting limited post-note document discovery.
            First, since the defendants’ demand was initially made in July of 2020, it does not run afoul of
            the court’s denial of service of additional demands in 2023. For the same reason, and since this
            motion was made before the court found that any further document discovery was waived, it
            cannot be concluded that the defendants waived that particular discovery. And, since those
            demands, at least in part, “go to the crux of the parties’ dispute” here, they are material and
            necessary. CPLR 3101(a) provides that “there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and
            necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” and that this language is “interpreted
            liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will
            assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity.” Osowski
            v AMEC Constr. Mgt., Inc., 69 AD3d 99, 106 (1st Dept. 2009) quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier
            Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407 (1968).

                   However, as articulated in the July 20, 2020, demand, it was overly broad as it sought,
            inter alia, “all documents” exchanged in that action, “all communications” between counsel in
            that action and “[a] complete copy of any file(s) maintained by Riverside with respect to” that
            action. See Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d 383 (1st Dept. 1983). It is well-settled
            that demands for disclosure must be “relevant, describe documents with ‘reasonable
            particularity,’ not impose an undue burden and not represent a ‘fishing expedition.’” Konrad v
            136 E 64th St. Corp., 209 AD2d 228, 228 (1st Dept. 1994) (citations omitted); CPLR 3120.

                   For these reasons, the court grants the instant motion only to the extent of directing the
            plaintiffs to provide to the defendants, within 30 days, all written discovery responses
            exchanged between Riverside and Tishman in the two actions (Index Nos. 656364/2017 and
            652700/2020) which concern, in whole or part, project delays, to the extent not already provided
            to the defendants. The defendants are certainly aware that all filed documents in either of the
            actions commenced by Riverside against Tishman are available on the court’s NYSCEF

             650043/2019 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY                  Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 009

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650043/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            system. Any failure to timely and fully comply with this order may result in the plaintiffs being
            precluded from using evidence at trial or in a dispositive motion. See CPLR 3126.

                    Furthermore, the parties’ deadline for filing a summary judgment motion is extended to
            May 1, 2024, to accommodate the limited additional discovery directed herein. As the court
            stated in the order dated July 17, 2023, the defendants’ have already been prejudiced by not
            having the undisclosed communications during the entire course of the litigation.

                    The plaintiffs need not pay any attorney’s fees incurred by the defendants on this
            motion.

                    Accordingly, upon the foregoing papers and this court’s prior order, it is

                    ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to compel discovery (MOT SEQ 009) is granted
            to the extent that the plaintiffs shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, provide to the
            defendants all written discovery responses exchanged to date between the plaintiff and
            defendant in the two actions entitled Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC v Tishman
            Construction Corporation of New York (Index Nos. 656364/2017 and No. 652700/2020) which
            concern, in whole or part, project construction delays, to the extent not previously provided; and
            the motion is otherwise denied, and it is further

                    ORDERED that the parties’ deadline for filing summary judgment motions is extended to
            May 1, 2024, to accommodate the additional discovery directed herein.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                                                                                   HON. NANCY M. BANNON
                      2/9/2024                                                               $SIG$
                       DATE
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                 X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                         □                                           □
                                         GRANTED              DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART               OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                     □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT         REFERENCE

             650043/2019 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY                      Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 009

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]