Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), dated April 3, 2006, which, inter alia, denied his motion for a protective order in connection with tenant's document demand and dismissed tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim with leave to serve an amended answer.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.) dated April 3, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The trial court is vested with broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223 [2003]), not here shown. The court's denial of landlord's motion for a protective order in connection with tenant's document demand was consistent with both the court's policy favoring disclosure in "owner use" holdover proceedings (see Teichman v Ciapi, 160 Misc 2d 182 [1994]; 42 West 15th St. Owners Corp. v Friedman, 208 Misc 123 [1955]) and the stipulation entered into and correspondence sent by the parties' respective attorneys at the inception of this proceeding. The documents sought by tenant, as limited and redacted by the court, are both germane to the proceeding and sufficiently narrow to permit ready compliance. [*2]

Even assuming for purposes of this appeal that the affirmative defenses and counterclaim set forth in tenant's answer were not sufficiently stated, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting tenant leave to replead via an amended answer. In the absence of a formal motion to dismiss or notice of cross appeal by tenant, we have no occasion to consider whether the landlord's notice of nonrenewal satisfied the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2524.2(b) and governing case law precedent (see e.g. Nahum v Goldschmidt, 2003 NY Slip Op 50028 [U]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: June 26, 2006