PERRONE v. SUEZ WATER ASSOCIATES INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie A. Stroth, J.), entered January 17, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ motion to strike third-party defendants-respondents’ answer or in the alternative, to compel certain discovery demands, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion to compel discovery with the appropriate redactions to prevent disclosure of private information and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a need for the additional discovery, including the names of the Milenos’ real estate broker, closing attorney, and mortgage bank, who may possess pre-closing inspection reports or photographs taken of the property and adjacent sidewalk before the closing.  CPLR 3101(a) mandates full disclosure of matters “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 37, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559, 11 N.E.3d 709 [2014]).  The documents sought are plainly relevant in that they may serve to establish whether the defect that caused plaintiff's injury existed prior to defendants’ excavation work.  Accordingly, defendants’ motion should have been granted to the extend stated herein (see Rivera v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 521, 521, 875 N.Y.S.2d 896 [1st Dept. 2009];  Polygram Holding, Inc. v. Cafaro, 42 A.D.3d 339, 341, 839 N.Y.S.2d 493 [1st Dept. 2007]).  The Milenos may redact the documents prior to disclosure to protect private information that is not relevant to this action.