Blue Ribbon Bags, LLC v LBF Travel, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 06799 [222 AD3d 576]
December 28, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 7, 2024


[*1]
 Blue Ribbon Bags, LLC, Respondent,
v
LBF Travel, Inc., Appellant.

The Auslaender Firm, P.C., New York (Justin Auslaender of counsel), for appellant.

Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Avery S. Mehlman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered January 13, 2023, which granted plaintiff Blue Ribbon Bags, LLC's motion to compel production of books and records, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion for production of books, records and financials. The order on appeal conforms with a prior order, entered August 5, 2022, granting a motion to compel a third-party audit of LBF's books and records in accordance with the terms of the parties' marketing and sales agreement (see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, the August 2022 order, which LBF did not appeal, contained no limitations with respect to the time period of the audit. Indeed, the trial court's statement at oral argument that Blue Ribbon should not have to accept LBF's representations regarding sales figures suggests that the court contemplated disclosure of records beyond the date on which LBF had purportedly stopped using Blue Ribbon's product or technology.

LBF's collateral attacks on the August 5, 2022 order are improper. As already noted, LBF failed to appeal or otherwise challenge Supreme Court's finding that a provision contained in the parties' marketing and sales agreement entitled Blue Ribbon to a complete audit (see Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v Platt, 148 AD3d 645, 646 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 986 [2017]; see also Matter of Vasciannio v Nedrick, 305 AD2d 420, 421 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 513 [2003]). Moreover, LBF's arguments that Blue Ribbon's discovery requests are overbroad, palpably improper, or irrelevant were never raised before Supreme Court in opposition to Blue Ribbon's motion, and thus, are unpreserved for our review (see 324 E. 9th St. Corp. v Acordia Northeast-N.Y., 29 AD3d 367, 367 [1st Dept 2006]). Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Webber, Friedman, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.