Court Opinion

ID: 5723631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:13:20.144606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:45.139788
License: Public Domain

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered August 23, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted in part plaintiffs’ cross motion.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied in part defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted in part plaintiffs’ cross motion, directing the deposition of defendant’s representative and directing defendant to turn over its file on plaintiffs “up until the date . . . that [defendant] sent out the disclaimer” of coverage. The court is vested with broad discretion to supervise discovery and to determine what disclosure is material and necessary (see Gibson v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 1047 [2005]; NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 192 AD2d 1032, 1033 [1993]; see generally CPLR 3101 [a]). Here, we note in particular that defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing the applicability of various exemptions from disclosure to the documents sought by plaintiffs (see Doe v Poe, 244 AD2d 450, 451-452 [1997], affd 92 NY2d 864 [1998]). Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.