This action arises from a dispute over site-safety services at a residential development project. Plaintiff, Reliable EHS Services, LLC, moves under CPLR 3126 for discovery sanctions against defendants, JIMCO Renovation Corp., 1850 Second Avenue Services Corporation, and New York Foundation for Senior Citizens, Inc. (Foundation for Senior Citizens). As sanctions, plaintiff seeks a default monetary judgment; to strike defendants' answers and counterclaims; to preclude defendants from presenting evidence on their affirmative defenses and counterclaims; to foreclose its mechanic's lien; and attorney fees.

Plaintiff served discovery demands on defendants in March 2024. Plaintiff contends that defendants repeatedly ignored their discovery obligations and two preliminary-conference orders setting out discovery deadlines. (NYSCEF No. 61, 62 [preliminary-conference orders].) Defendants did not serve interrogatory responses, produce documents, or appear for depositions.

Plaintiff filed this motion in November 2024. Defendants then provided interrogatory responses and document production. According to plaintiff, defendants' responses are insufficient because they consist of boilerplate objections and vague "see production" references that do not identify precise page numbers on which the relevant information might be found. In particular, plaintiff contends that defendants' responses to (i) interrogatories 5 (a), 5 (b), 7 (a), and 16 and (ii) notice of discovery and inspection demand nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 21 are lacking.

I. Interrgoatories

On interrogatories nos. 5 (a) and 5 (b), plaintiff seeks details about payments from JIMCO to plaintiff and payments from 1850 Second Avenue or Foundation for Senior Citizens to JIMCO. (See NYSCEF No. 79 at 6 [pdf pagination].) Defendants object to those interrogatories as "overly broad" and "vague." (Id.) Defendants also refer plaintiff to defendants' document production and—more generally—to payments defendants made to plaintiff. Plaintiff says that defendant submitted no checks and did not direct plaintiff how to find those checks. Because defendants do not explicitly identify the payments responsive to these interrogatories, the court concludes that defendants must now identify those payments.

On interrogatory no. 7 (a), plaintiff seeks the amount of each payment defendants made to site safety contractors and suppliers. Defendants respond that JIMCO paid City Builders $2,000 a month. But defendants do not say whether they produced copies of those payments. Nor do they say how many months they paid City Builders $2,000. The court therefore holds that defendants must supplement their responses to this interrogatory.

On interrogatory no. 16, plaintiff asks defendants to identify all people they communicated with in the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development and to attach copies of correspondence reflecting that defendants sought money or approval for change orders to plaintiff's site safety services. (NYSCEF No. 79 at 10 [pdf pagination].) Defendants respond with a general reference to their document production but do not identify the documents responsive to this interrogatory. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendants must identify the responsive documents.

II. Discovery and Inspection Demands

On plaintiff's first demand for discovery and inspection, plaintiff seeks contract and purchase orders. (NYSCEF No. 75 at 1 [pdf pagination].) On demand nos. 5 and 6, defendants seek change orders between JIMCO and 1850 Second Avenue. (Id. at 2.) Defendants respond that they have provided those documents. But they do not identify which documents respond to those demands. The court concludes that defendants must identify the documents that respond to [*2]these demands.

On demand no. 8, plaintiff seeks invoices from plaintiff to JIMCO. (NYSCEF No. 75 at 2 [pdf pagination].) Defendants respond by referencing document production located at NYSCEF No. 38 in another (now-disposed) action. (Matter of JIMCO Renovation Corp. v Reliable EHS Services, Index No. 154776/2023). Plaintiff says that document No. 38 was deleted from NYSCEF. The court disagrees with plaintiff. The document is still accessible on NYSCEF. Defendants need not respond further to this demand.

On demand nos. 12 and 13, plaintiff seeks all documents reflecting payment by JIMCO to repair or finish site services provided by plaintiff and documents reflecting the costs JIMCO incurred when plaintiff did not fulfill those services. Although defendants responded that they paid $30,000 (at $2,000 a month), they do not state whether they have provided the documents reflecting those sums or identify the precise documents within the already-produced discovery that do. (NYSCEF No. 75 at 3 [pdf pagination].) Defendants must therefore supplement their production.

On demand no. 15, plaintiff seeks documents plaintiff filed for the project. Defendants respond only that "a copy of any documents filed and/or submitted by Plaintiff would be in Plaintiff's possession." (NYSCEF No. 75 at 3 [pdf pagination].) On demand no. 16, plaintiff demands all meeting minutes about the project, plaintiff's site safety services, and site services provided by plaintiff's replacement. (NYSCEF No. 75 at 4 [pdf pagination].) Defendants responded that they would provide the minutes within 30 days. (Id.) The court holds these responses nonresponsive. Defendants must respond to these demands immediately.

On demand no. 21, plaintiff demands internal memorandums, emails, daily reports, diaries, or ledgers that defendants maintained about plaintiff's site safety services. (NYSCEF No. 75 at 4 [pdf pagination].) Defendants responded with a general reference to their document production without identifying the pertinent documents. The court concludes that defendants must identify the documents responsive to this demand.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendants must within 30 days of entry of this order supplement their discovery responses, to the extent enumerated above; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion seeking an award of CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions is granted to the extent that defendants must pay plaintiff the reasonable attorney fees incurred by defendant in making the motion, with the amount of those fees to be determined by motion on notice made at the close of the case; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties appear for a telephonic compliance conference on October 30, 2025.