RODNEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2021)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence L. Love, J.), entered on or about April 29, 2020, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer of defendant Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc. (MVVA), and granted MVVA leave to renew its cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion (see Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286, 286–287, 863 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1st Dept. 2008], affd 12 N.Y.3d 846, 881 N.Y.S.2d 390, 909 N.E.2d 83 [2009], cert denied 559 U.S. 905, 130 S.Ct. 1301, 175 L.Ed.2d 1076 [2010];  148 Magnolia, LLC v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 486, 487, 878 N.Y.S.2d 727 [1st Dept. 2009]).  Here, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to strike MVVA's answer, due to her failure to demonstrate that any noncompliance with the court's single discovery order was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Lee v. 13th St. Entertainment LLC, 161 A.D.3d 631, 78 N.Y.S.3d 26 [1st Dept. 2018];  Delgado v. City of New York, 47 A.D.3d 550, 850 N.Y.S.2d 401 [1st Dept. 2008]).

The court also providently exercised its discretion by permitting MVVA leave to renew its discovery-related cross motion for a protective order (see Ramos v. Dekhtyar, 301 A.D.2d 428, 429, 753 N.Y.S.2d 489 [1st Dept. 2003];  Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 374, 376–377, 720 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept. 2001]).