IN RE: the Petition of Lindsay Ryan (2026)

Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 3 read on this motion to preclude and related relief; Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-2; and Answering affidavits and supporting papers 3; it is

ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth herein, respondent's motion is denied.

In this miscellaneous proceeding respondent, Armand Regateiro, III, has filed a motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 3126, an order precluding the use of his deposition testimony for any purpose and imposing sanctions against petitioner. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

Petitioner filed the underlying proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover and obtain information from three respondents: AJR3 Construction Corp., Armand Regateiro, III, and Debra Regateiro. Petitioner seeks information concerning loans which decedent allegedly made to respondents that were never fully repaid. An Order to Attend was signed by the undersigned on September 17, 2026 directing respondents to appear at the court to attend an inquiry concerning the matters set forth in the petition.

By this motion, the attorney for respondent Armand J. Regateiro, III asserts that an inquiry of her client was held at the nursing home where he resides, that such inquiry lasted about two and a half hours, that due to Mr. Regateiro's poor health the attorney had requested that the deposition conclude, but that petitioner's counsel insisted on continuing the examination. Mr. Regateiro's attorney asserts that such willful conduct is sanctionable pursuant to CPLR 3126, that the resulting testimony was obtained from a medically compromised witness which renders the reliability of the testimony inherently suspect and creates substantial prejudice. Thus, movant argues, the appropriate remedy is vacatur of the deposition and the imposition of sanctions including the dismissal of the claims asserted against Mr. Regateiro. In support of the motion, movant has attached a transcript of the examination of Mr. Regateiro.

The motion is opposed by petitioner who argues that the request for sanctions is a severe remedy and without merit. Petitioner argues that there was no misconduct, that the deposition had been conducted in good faith, and that the motion is premised on generalized and conclusory assertions, which is insufficient as a matter of law to warrant relief under CPLR 3126. Petitioner argues that respondent's attorney did not state or establish that respondent was medically unable to proceed and has furnished no proof or letter from a doctor indicating that he was not able to be examined. Petitioner asserts that respondent is an integral witness, that reasonable accommodations for his health were made, that his deposition is essential to the truth-finding function of the pending proceeding and that respondent failed to request a protective order or provide medical evidence sufficient to justify one.

It is well-settled that a trial court has broad discretion in supervising discovery, including the manner in which discovery is to be provided (Vagile v. Chisena, 272 AD2d 601). In order to prevent abuse related to CPLR Article 31 Discovery, CPLR 3103 provides that the court may make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. CPLR 3103 (c) also allows for the suppression of information if it is improperly or irregularly obtained and would substantially prejudice a right of a party.

To be discoverable, the information sought must be sufficiently related to the issues in the litigation to make the effort to obtain it reasonable (Helman v. Haberman, 288 AD2d 101). CPLR 3101(a) entitles parties to "full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." What is material and necessary includes "any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity" (Andon v. 302-304 Mott St.Assocs, 94 NY2d 740; Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Titleserv, Inc. v. Zenobio, 210 AD2d 314).

Other than her own conclusory allegations, movant has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate either that her client's medical condition does not allow for his examination, or that petitioner's attorney's actions were so improper or irregular such that a substantial right of a party is, was, or will be prejudiced. Accordingly, the motion is denied (CPLR 3103) and the deposition of Mr. Regitiero shall continue. If any special accommodation for Mr. Regitiero is requested and denied, the parties shall request a conference with the court prior to making a formal application.

Dated: June 29, 2026

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Surrogate

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., S.