New Line Stone Co., Inc. v BCRE Servs. LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 08308 [89 AD3d 581]

November 17, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

— [*1]

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Michael R. Wood of counsel), for appellants.

Wilkofsky, Friedman, Karel & Cummins, New York (David B. Karel of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lancelot B. Hewitt, Special Ref.), entered April 14, 2011, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide detailed responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories numbered 4 through 13, unanimously modified, on the facts, to deny the motion only with respect to interrogatory No. 13, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in requiring defendants to provide more detailed responses to plaintiff’s interrogatory Nos. 4 through 12, which sought the facts underlying defendants’ seven affirmative defenses and three counterclaims. Most of defendants’ responses provided general statement of facts, and some responses provided no facts at all. Moreover, defendants failed to meet their burden to establish that the information sought was privileged ( see JP Foodservice Distribs. v Sorrento, Inc. , 305 AD2d 266 [2003]). However, defendants are not required to respond to interrogatory No. 13, since it is repetitive. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ..