Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
EXHIBIT "E"
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--_________..---..----__-- ________-..-----------------------x
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMBINED DEMANDS AND
DOROTHY SOMEKH '
NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY
AND INSPECTION DATED
Plaintiff(s),
MAY 19, 2023
- against -
PACE UNIVERSITY, CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE Index No: 151835/2023
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND File No: 2023-021165
RECREATION,
Defendant(s).
____________-_________________________.._________________________________Ç
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant(s) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and
CITY OF NEW YORK S/H/A THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND
RECREATION, (hereinafter "City") responds to the plaintiff's NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION dated MAY 19, 2023, in the above-captioned matter, upon information and belief and
upon records filed in the Office of the Corporation Counsel, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS:
1. The City objects to these Demands to the extent that they purport to impose
obligations on the City other than those imposed or authorized by the CPLR. Further, the City
specifically objects to these Demands to the extent they request information not "material and
necessary"
to the defense or prosecution of an action, as set forth in CPLR § 3101(a). The City
objects to this demand as it exceeds the scope of the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in
City Civil Cases Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions
"A"
commenced against the City of New York. Annexed hereto as Exhibit is a copy of the
uniform CSO.
2. In providing these objections and responses to these Demands, the City does
not in any way waive or intend to waive but intends to preserve and is preserving: (i) all objections
as to vagueness, ambiguity and undue burden; (ii) all objections as to materiality, relevance and
admissibility of any document or information produced in response to these Demands, or the
subject matter thereof; and (iii) all rights to object on any ground to the use of any of said
documents or information, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings, including
the trial of this or any other action.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
3. These general objections are incorporated into each of the specific
responses to these Demands and shall be deemed continuing as to each Demand and are not
waived, nor in any way limited by, specific responses.
4. Inadvertent production of any document or information which is privileged, was
prepared in anticipation of litigation, or is otherwise immune from discovery, shall not constitute
a waiver of any privilege or of another ground for objecting to discovery with respect to that
document or any other document, or its subject matter, or the information contained therein, or of
defendants'
right to object to the use of any such document or the information contained therein
during any proceeding in this litigation or otherwise.
5. The City objects in the entirety to any request for information or production from
entities not represented by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.
6. The City further objects in the entirety to these Demands to the extent that they
seek the home address of individuals identified by the defendant.
7. The City is continuing to search for information responsive to plaintiff's requests
and therefore reserve the right to supplement its response to each request with additional
information, if and when such information becomes available to defendant's counsel. The City
also reserves the right to object to the future disclosure of any such information.
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF
INSURANCE COVERAGE
(Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City of New York is uninsured.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR INSURANCE POLICY LIMITS, COPY OF
POLICY, INSURANCE CARRIER'S COMPLETE CLAIM/INVESTIGATION FILE AND
AFFIDAVIT OF EXCESS INSURANCE
(A-H) (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City of New York is uninsured.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
WITNESSES
(A-D). (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City is unaware of any witnesses
at this time, but reserves the right to call as a witness any person identified by any party to this
litigation and/or any person identified produced in discovery.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF A
PARTY REPRESENTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED
Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. S_ee Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
materials"
2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and
papers"
work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v.
Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247
A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997);
Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins.
4 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is
unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said
objection, the City of New York is not in possession of any opposing party statements, other than
the General Municipal Law § 50-H transcript of the plaintiff, which is in the possession of the
plaintiff.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR
PHOTOGRAPHS, AUDIO TAPES,
SLIDES, VIDEO TAPES AND MOTION PICTURES
(A-F). (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: Objection. The City objects to these
demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v.
Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and
inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could
be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank,
materials"
289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all
papers"
memorandum, correspondence, and work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and
impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999);
Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc.,
237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't
1991); American Reliance Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). However, over objection
and without waiving same, the objection, notwithstanding, the City is not in possession of any
slides, stills, videotapes, or motion pictures related to the alleged incident, and is unaware of any
photographs other than the photographs provided by the plaintiff.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR ACCIDENT REPORTS
Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
materials"
2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
papers"
work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v.
Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247
A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997);
Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (Ist Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins.
Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is
unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said
objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases
Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the
City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto
as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO
the City has requested a search for records from the New York City Department of Transportation
("DOT") for the sidewalk on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County,
City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon
receipt from the client agency.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DEMAND FOR RECORDS OF
CONSTRUCTION,
RECONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION
(1-5). Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. lee Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
materials"
2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and
papers"
work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v.
Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247
A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997);
Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins.
Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is
unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said
objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases
Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the
City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto
as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO
the City has requested a search for records from the New York City Department of Transportation
("DOT") for the sidewalk on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County,
City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon
receipt from the client agency.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS REGARDING
INSPECTION,
MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIR OF CONDITION
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
materials"
2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and
papers"
work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v.
Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247
A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997);
Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins.
CL 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is
unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said
objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases
Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the
City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto
as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO
the City has requested a search for permits, applications for permits, corrective action requests,
notices of violation, inspections, maintenance and repair orders, contracts, complaints, and Big
Apple Maps from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk
allegedly involved on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City,
and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt
from the client agency.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
RECORDS
Response: Objection. This demand is not relevant as there are no claims involving
a City owned vehicle.
DEMAND FOR CONTRACTS
Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
materials"
2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and
papers"
work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v.
Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247
A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997);
Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins.
Con 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is
unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said
objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the
City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto
as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO
the City has requested a search for permits, applications for permits, corrective action requests,
notices of violation, inspections, maintenance and repair orders, contracts, complaints, and Big
Apple Maps from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk
allegedly involved on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City,
and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt
from the client agency.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF
EXPERT WITNESS
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPLR RULE 3101(D)
(a-e). Response: The City of New York has not obtained an expert witness, but
reserves the right to do so and supplement this response accordingly.
RESPONSE TO SEPARATE DEMANDS WITH REGARD TO MOTOR
VEHICLE CASES
(a-b). Response: Objection. This demand is not relevant as there are no claims
involving a City owned vehicle.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PRIOR CLAIMS
(a-c). Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably
improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104
A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were
not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of
irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 EXHIBIT "E" FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --_________..---..----__-- ________-..-----------------------x RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED DEMANDS AND DOROTHY SOMEKH ' NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION DATED Plaintiff(s), MAY 19, 2023 - against - PACE UNIVERSITY, CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE Index No: 151835/2023 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND File No: 2023-021165 RECREATION, Defendant(s). ____________-_________________________.._________________________________Ç PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant(s) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and CITY OF NEW YORK S/H/A THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, (hereinafter "City") responds to the plaintiff's NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION dated MAY 19, 2023, in the above-captioned matter, upon information and belief and upon records filed in the Office of the Corporation Counsel, as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS: 1. The City objects to these Demands to the extent that they purport to impose obligations on the City other than those imposed or authorized by the CPLR. Further, the City specifically objects to these Demands to the extent they request information not "material and necessary" to the defense or prosecution of an action, as set forth in CPLR § 3101(a). The City objects to this demand as it exceeds the scope of the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions "A" commenced against the City of New York. Annexed hereto as Exhibit is a copy of the uniform CSO. 2. In providing these objections and responses to these Demands, the City does not in any way waive or intend to waive but intends to preserve and is preserving: (i) all objections as to vagueness, ambiguity and undue burden; (ii) all objections as to materiality, relevance and admissibility of any document or information produced in response to these Demands, or the subject matter thereof; and (iii) all rights to object on any ground to the use of any of said documents or information, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings, including the trial of this or any other action. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 3. These general objections are incorporated into each of the specific responses to these Demands and shall be deemed continuing as to each Demand and are not waived, nor in any way limited by, specific responses. 4. Inadvertent production of any document or information which is privileged, was prepared in anticipation of litigation, or is otherwise immune from discovery, shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of another ground for objecting to discovery with respect to that document or any other document, or its subject matter, or the information contained therein, or of defendants' right to object to the use of any such document or the information contained therein during any proceeding in this litigation or otherwise. 5. The City objects in the entirety to any request for information or production from entities not represented by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. 6. The City further objects in the entirety to these Demands to the extent that they seek the home address of individuals identified by the defendant. 7. The City is continuing to search for information responsive to plaintiff's requests and therefore reserve the right to supplement its response to each request with additional information, if and when such information becomes available to defendant's counsel. The City also reserves the right to object to the future disclosure of any such information. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City of New York is uninsured. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR INSURANCE POLICY LIMITS, COPY OF POLICY, INSURANCE CARRIER'S COMPLETE CLAIM/INVESTIGATION FILE AND AFFIDAVIT OF EXCESS INSURANCE (A-H) (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City of New York is uninsured. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES (A-D). (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: The City is unaware of any witnesses at this time, but reserves the right to call as a witness any person identified by any party to this litigation and/or any person identified produced in discovery. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF A PARTY REPRESENTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. S_ee Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't materials" 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and papers" work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. 4 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said objection, the City of New York is not in possession of any opposing party statements, other than the General Municipal Law § 50-H transcript of the plaintiff, which is in the possession of the plaintiff. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PHOTOGRAPHS, AUDIO TAPES, SLIDES, VIDEO TAPES AND MOTION PICTURES (A-F). (Inclusive of all subparts). Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, materials" 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all papers" memorandum, correspondence, and work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). However, over objection and without waiving same, the objection, notwithstanding, the City is not in possession of any slides, stills, videotapes, or motion pictures related to the alleged incident, and is unaware of any photographs other than the photographs provided by the plaintiff. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR ACCIDENT REPORTS Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't materials" 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 papers" work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (Ist Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO the City has requested a search for records from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt from the client agency. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DEMAND FOR RECORDS OF CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION (1-5). Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. lee Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't materials" 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and papers" work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO the City has requested a search for records from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt from the client agency. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS REGARDING INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIR OF CONDITION 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't materials" 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and papers" work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. CL 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO the City has requested a search for permits, applications for permits, corrective action requests, notices of violation, inspections, maintenance and repair orders, contracts, complaints, and Big Apple Maps from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk allegedly involved on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt from the client agency. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RECORDS Response: Objection. This demand is not relevant as there are no claims involving a City owned vehicle. DEMAND FOR CONTRACTS Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't materials" 2001) (holding that requests for "all . . . and "all memorandum, correspondence, and papers" work are "overbroad, seek irrelevant information and impose an undue burden"); Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429 (2d Dep't 1999); Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 A.D.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1998); Blum v. Allied Hardware, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1997); Related Co. v. Bishops Services, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dep't 1991); American Reliance Ins. Con 174 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1991). Defendant objects to this demand on the grounds that it is unduly vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and ambiguous. However, without waiving said objection, in accordance with the Uniform Case Scheduling Order Adopted in City Civil Cases 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 151835/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 Litigated in Supreme Court across New York City ("CSO") for actions commenced against the City of New York, which has not been generated. A copy of the Uniform CSO is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". However, over objection and without waiving same, pursuant to the Uniform CSO the City has requested a search for permits, applications for permits, corrective action requests, notices of violation, inspections, maintenance and repair orders, contracts, complaints, and Big Apple Maps from the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") for the sidewalk allegedly involved on Pace Plaza between Spruce Street and Frankfort Street, in the County, City, and State of New York. A copy of the results of said DOT search will be provided upon receipt from the client agency. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPLR RULE 3101(D) (a-e). Response: The City of New York has not obtained an expert witness, but reserves the right to do so and supplement this response accordingly. RESPONSE TO SEPARATE DEMANDS WITH REGARD TO MOTOR VEHICLE CASES (a-b). Response: Objection. This demand is not relevant as there are no claims involving a City owned vehicle. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PRIOR CLAIMS (a-c). Response: Objection. The City objects to these demands as being palpably improper, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. See Conway v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Dep't 1984) (holding that discovery and inspection of records which were not limited in terms were overly broad inasmuch as they "could be read to include a myriad of irrelevant items") Id. at 1019. See also, Andrews v. Trustco Bank, 289 A.D.2d 910, 913 (3d Dep't