STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE INC v. STEENBOK INC (2021)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery to the extent of directing defendants to comply with certain specified requests and to submit to depositions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although some of the information plaintiff seeks pre- and post-dates the terms of the contracts at issue, the information is nonetheless material and necessary to its claims (see CPLR 3101[a];  Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430 [1968]), since plaintiffs allege that defendants warranted their financial condition when they entered into the contracts, that they may have misrepresented their financial condition, and that they failed to meet their financial obligations under the contracts.  The post-contract events are relevant to plaintiff's claims and potential damages, given the conflicting evidence as to whether defendant Steenbok remained in business or had sold or otherwise transferred its assets to a successor entity and since the contracts provided that their terms would be binding upon the parties' respective successors and assigns.

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.