Recitation, as required by CPLR section 2219(a), of the papers considered in this review of this motion for leave to conduct discovery.Papers NumberedPetition and Notice of Petition 1Notice of Motion 2Affirmation in Opposition 3Affirmation in Reply 4DECISION/ORDER Petitioner commenced the instant summary holdover proceeding seeking a judgment of possession for the subject premises located at 1677 Woodbine Street, apartment 3L, Ridgewood, New York. The predicate notice and petition allege that the subject apartment is rent stabilized and the apartment is needed for the owner’s family use. The matter first appeared on the court’s calendar on October 30, 2017 and was adjourned for all purposes. Respondent retained counsel and moved for leave to conduct discovery. On January 10, 2018 the matter was adjourned by stipulation for motion practice. Respondent seeks the production of documents and examination before trial. Petitioner opposes the motion arguing that the respondent’s discovery request is overly broad and improper.CPLR §408 states that leave of court is required for discovery in a summary proceeding. Discovery is typically granted where there is ample need. New York University v. Farkas, 121 Misc.2d 643, 468 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1983). See also Quality & Ruskin Assoc. v. London, 8 Misc.3d 102, 800 N.Y.S.2d 259 (App. Term 2d & 11th Jud. Dist. 2005); Hartsdale Realty Co. v. Santos, 170 A.D.2d 260, 565 N.Y.S.2d 527 (1st Dep’t, 1991).In New York University v. Farkas, 121 Misc.2d 643, 468 N.Y.S.2d 808 (1983), the court set forth the factors to consider when weighing a disclosure request in summary proceedings. They are as follows: Whether facts have been asserted to establish a cause of action; there is a need to determine information directly related to the cause of action; the requested disclosure is carefully tailored and is likely to clarify disputed facts; whether prejudice will result from the granting of an application for disclosure and the prejudice can be diminished or alleviated by an order fashioned by the court for this purpose. Id. At 647. It should be noted that the factors from New York University v. Farkas need not all be met for the court to find ample need. Ample need has also been found where there is a factual basis for discovery, where the information requested is peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, where elucidation of the facts is preferable to a quick solution, and where there is minimal prejudice to the other party. Quality & Ruskin Associates v. London, 8 Misc.3d 102, 800 N.Y.S.2d 259 (App. Term 2d & 11th Jud. Dist. 2005); Smilow v. Ulrich, 11 Misc.3d 179, 806 N.Y.S.2d 392, (Civ. Ct., NY Co., 2005); see also, Perlman v. Martinez, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 6, 1999, p. 27, col. 6 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co.). Ample need has also been found where the information sought is essential and within the other party’s knowledge or within the knowledge of a non-party witness. Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. IRM, Inc., 143 Misc.2d 22, 539 N.Y.S.2d 671 (1989). See also Treasure Tower corp. v. Tian Hua Chan, 20 Misc.3d 1109(A), 866 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2008), citing to 125 Church St. Dev. Co. v. Grassfield, 170 Misc.2d 31, 648 N.Y.S.2d 515 (1996). Petitioner’s intent is in his exclusive purview. Respondent has the right to disclose petitioner’s purpose. Smilow v. Ulrich, Id.In the instant proceeding, respondent questions and seeks to disclose petitioner’s good faith intentions to recover the subject premises for personal use. Furthermore the requested disclosure is likely to clarify the allegations which are the basis for this summary holdover proceeding. Finally, the prejudice to the Petitioner is minimal.Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for discovery is granted. This proceeding is marked off calendar until the conclusion of discovery and may be restored to the court’s calendar by stipulation or motion.The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.Dated: Queens, New YorkMarch 27, 2018
