ADLER v. OXFORD HEALTH PLANS NY INC (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Andrew A. Crecca, J.), dated July 24, 2023.  The order denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant to comply with certain discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant alleging, inter alia, that the defendant had failed to pay her the appropriate rate for professional services rendered to its members.  In August 2018, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant to provide certain documents and information that were sought in a notice to produce served upon the defendant.  In an order dated July 24, 2023, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“CPLR 3101(a) directs that generally, ‘there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’ ” (Strauss v. Valkenburg, 227 A.D.3d 1118, 1118–1119, 212 N.Y.S.3d 198 [alterations omitted], quoting Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 661, 70 N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882).  “Nonetheless, ‘although broad,’ the right to disclosure ‘is not unlimited’ ” (id. at 1119, 212 N.Y.S.3d 198, quoting Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d at 661, 70 N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882).  “It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims, and unsubstantiated bare allegations of relevancy are insufficient to establish the factual predicate regarding relevancy” (Rrengo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 204 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 165 N.Y.S.3d 334 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “ ‘The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the actions before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised’ ” (Kunwar v. Northwell Health, 229 A.D.3d 528, 530, 215 N.Y.S.3d 408, quoting Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 284 A.D.2d 518, 518, 727 N.Y.S.2d 142;  see Matter of Metro–North Train Acc. of Feb. 3, 2015, 178 A.D.3d 929, 931, 112 N.Y.S.3d 530).  Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery was material and necessary (see 101CO, LLC v. Sand Land Corp., 189 A.D.3d 942, 944, 138 N.Y.S.3d 89;  Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 A.D.2d 420, 421, 541 N.Y.S.2d 30).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.