De Masi v. De Masi, 81 N.Y.2d 835 (1993)
The scope of appellate review for discovery orders is limited to determining whether the lower courts had the power to grant or deny discovery and, if so, whether that discretionary power was abused as a matter of law.
Summary
In a matrimonial and custody action, the defendant sought discovery, including a psychiatric examination of her husband by a physician of her choosing. The lower courts denied this request. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether its order was properly made. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the denial of discovery was within the lower courts’ power and did not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, emphasizing the discretionary nature of discovery rulings and the limited scope of appellate review in such matters.
Facts
The case involves a matrimonial and custody dispute between the parties. The defendant-wife sought to compel her husband to submit to a psychiatric examination by a physician of her choosing. The lower courts denied the defendant’s discovery request.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant’s discovery request. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower courts abused their discretion as a matter of law in denying the defendant’s discovery request, specifically the psychiatric examination of her husband by a physician of her choosing.
Holding
No, because the grant or denial of discovery is a discretionary matter, and the lower courts’ decision was within their power and did not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that discovery matters are discretionary. The Court stated, “Inasmuch as the grant or denial of discovery is a discretionary matter, the scope of our review in this appeal is limited to determining whether the courts below had the power to deny discovery and, if so, whether that discretionary power was abused.” The Court found no abuse of discretion in the lower courts’ decision. The Court cited prior precedent including Matter of 425 Park Ave. Co. v Finance Adm’r, 69 NY2d 645, 647; Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 NY2d 692, 693; Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031 to support the limited scope of review for discretionary matters. The Court’s analysis focused on the principle that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the lower courts in discretionary matters unless there is a clear abuse of power. In this case, the Court determined that the lower courts acted within their authority in denying the requested discovery.