[*1]
HSBC Bank Nev., N.A. v Jaroslawicz
2011 NY Slip Op 50709(U) [31 Misc 3d 137(A)]
Decided on April 21, 2011
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on April 21, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
570274/10.

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

David Jaroslawicz,


HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,NY County Clerk's Plaintiff-Appellant,No. 570274/10 -against- David Jaroslawicz,Calendar No. 11-077 Defendant-Respondent. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, which conditionally granted defendant's motion to strike the complaint for noncompliance with certain disclosure obligations. Per Curiam. Order (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs. In the absence of a showing that the discovery requests were overbroad or unduly burdensome, plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that defendant's discovery demands were improper (see Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 251 AD2d 35, 40 [1998]; Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v Tempco Sys., 202 AD2d 257, 258 [1994]). Nor was it shown that the documents sought were privileged (see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies, 32 AD3d 353, 359 [2006]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 190-191 [2005]). We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Decision Date: April 21, 2011
APRIL 21, 2011
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
March 2011 Term
Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ.
Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, which conditionally granted defendant's motion to strike the complaint for noncompliance with certain disclosure obligations.


Per Curiam.

Order (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In the absence of a showing that the discovery requests were overbroad or unduly burdensome, plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that defendant's discovery demands were improper (see Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 251 AD2d 35, 40 [1998]; Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v Tempco Sys., 202 AD2d 257, 258 [1994]). Nor was it shown that the documents sought were privileged (see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies, 32 AD3d 353, 359 [2006]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 190-191 [2005]).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 21, 2011