DUNN v. 240 SULL LLC (2026)

In this action, plaintiff, Leslie Dunn, seeks a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to succeed to the rent-regulated tenancy of the (now-deceased) tenant of record in an apartment rented from defendant, 240 Sull LLC. Plaintiff now moves under CPLR 3103 for a protective order shielding him from having to respond to five document requests served by defendant. (See NYSCEF No. 30.) The motion is granted.

The document requests at issue are Nos. 81-85 in defendant's notice for discovery and inspection. (See NYSCEF No. 7 at 9.) Request Nos. 81-84 seek complete account and location information and transaction histories from 2013-2024 for plaintiff's ride-share accounts (such as Lyft and Uber), his Amazon account, his food-delivery accounts (such as Seamless and DoorDash), and his Venmo money-transfer account. (Id. at ¶¶ 81-84.) Request No. 85 seeks an authorization permitting defendant to obtain plaintiff's “cell phone information and history, geolocation data and/or cell site data” for the same 2013-2024 period. (Id. at ¶ 85.) Plaintiff argues that he should not have to respond to these requests because they are palpably improper. This court agrees.

It is undisputed that in response to defendants' other document requests, plaintiff has provided extensive discovery documenting his relationship with the tenant of record and his residency in the apartment at issue—including affidavits, his tax returns and paystubs, driver's license and voter registration, bank and credit-card statements, cellphone and utility bills, and the like. (See NYSCEF No. 31 at ¶ 11 [enumerating categories of documents produced].) The additional discovery sought in the five challenged requests is largely cumulative, therefore, of the broad array of information that plaintiff has already produced—yet also deeply intrusive into plaintiff's personal life in ways that have nothing to do with the succession-rights claim at issue.

Moreover, defendant has not identified any basis to doubt the accuracy of the documents that plaintiff has already produced, or any evidence that might call into question plaintiff's representations that he lived with the deceased tenant of record for years and enjoyed a close and emotionally-committed relationship with him (see NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶¶ 15-24 [verified complaint]). Defendant thus has not even tried to show that, notwithstanding the requests' invasiveness, they nonetheless seek information that is material and necessary in responding to plaintiff's succession-rights claim.

Given that these requests are both invasive and seek information of limited probative value plaintiff is entitled to a CPLR 3103 protective order shielding him from having to respond to them.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's CPLR 3103 motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties appear before this court for a telephonic status conference on January 16, 2026.

Gerald Lebovits, J.