*1 This is a commercial landlord-tenant action, brought by plaintiff-landlord, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Uganda to the United Nations, against defendant-tenants, Artemus USA LLC and Edelman Arts, Inc. (defendant), for allegedly failing to pay rent from April 2020 to June 30, 2022.[1] Defendant counterclaimed for damages and expenses resulting from plaintiff's alleged breach of the warranty of habitability of the leased premises.

Plaintiff now moves to compel defendant to comply with its discovery demands under CPLR 3124 and for sanctions under CPLR 3126. Plaintiff is seeking (i) documents withheld from defendant's response to plaintiff's second document demand; and (ii) documents responsive to plaintiff's post-EBT demands. The motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. The request for sanctions is denied.

1. Plaintiff seeks production of three items requested in its second document demand, comprising tax documents, bank account statements, and insurance policies. (See NYSCEF No. 49 at 4.) Plaintiff claims that disclosure of defendant's insurance policy is relevant to determine if “such a policy may serve as a collateral source for damages that Defendants seek” concerning their warranty of habitability claims. (NYSCEF No. 49 at 5.) As for defendant's tax and bank documents, plaintiff asserts that they are relevant to substantiate defendant's claims that it suffered financially during the COVID-19 pandemic and that it spent $300,000 in renovating the premises.

The court concludes that documents relating to defendant's claim of financial hardship due to COVID-19 is not relevant and need not be produced. As defendant points out—and as plaintiff does not dispute—defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims do not rest on claims about pandemic-related harms to defendant's business. At most, plaintiff contends that “[d]efendants have claimed at different points prior to the commencement of this case that COVID-19 created a financial hardship for the two companies and prevent[ed] payment of arrears.” (NYSCEF No. 13 at 7 [emphasis added].) But plaintiff has not shown that those pre-action representations by defendant bear on any claims or defenses in this action.

This court reaches a different conclusion with respect to documents that might provide information about defendant's renovation payments. Seven of defendants’ nine counterclaims present warranty of habitability defenses, and their seventh counterclaim specifically alleges that, in remedying the alleged damage to the premises, they “expended considerable sums of money.” (NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶ 41.) Defendant must produce a copy of its insurance policy, and copies of bank statements, to the extent they record such payments. Plaintiff has not, however, met the high bar required to warrant production of defendant's tax returns. but that it need not disclose its tax documents. (Nanbar Realty Corp. v Pater Realty Co., 242 AD2d 208, 209 [1st Dept 1997] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

*2 2. As to plaintiff's post-deposition discovery demand, the court first concludes that defendant shall disclose those documents directly related to the items and information requested during the deposition, the relevance of which is not in dispute. (See NYSCEF No. 49 at 8 [listing “demands number 1, 23, 24, 37”].) On the other hand, for the reasons given above, post-EBT demands aimed solely at confirming defendants’ financial hardship due to the pandemic are irrelevant and need not be disclosed.

As to the remaining requests in the post-deposition discovery demand, plaintiff categorizes those requests into the following group: (1) “Requests about corporate tenants occupying and using the premises”; (2) “Requests about Edelman Arts”; (3) “Requests about Defendants’ counterclaims”; (4) “Requests tending to impugn credibility”; and (5) “Requests related to the second demand.”[2] (NYSCEF No. 49 at 9.)

Plaintiff explains that the first group concerns information related to the “other corporate entities [that] also occupied the premises.” (NYSCEF No. 49 at 9.) But even assuming as true that these corporate entities were “not supposed to occupy the premises” (id.), this information is irrelevant to plaintiff's unpaid-rent claim. Defendant need not disclose documents related to post-EBT demand Nos. 5, 6, 7, 17, 22, 26, 29, 30, and 41.

Plaintiff's second group concerns defendant's corporate minutes, board membership, and financial records. Plaintiff argues that such information is relevant to confirming defendant's renovation and rental payments. The court concludes that defendant must disclose documents related to demand nos. 2, 38, and 40. Defendant need not produce documents related to demand nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, and 39.

The third group includes document requests related to defendants’ counterclaims, as well as their response to plaintiff's prior discovery demands. Plaintiff asserts that this item also seeks information related to correspondence with defendants’ real estate agent, who plaintiff alleges was included in defendants’ communications regarding the condition of the premises and their renovation plans. The court concludes that documents related to demand nos. 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, and 26 must be disclosed. Defendant need not produce documents responsive to demand nos. 10, 12, 15, 28, or 35. Demand no. 20, although seeking potentially relevant information, is overbroad as currently drafted. Defendant need not respond to that demand in its current form; but plaintiff may re-serve a more focused version of the demand. With respect to demand no. 19, the court lacks sufficient context to tell whether this demand seeks potentially relevant information (or whether the scope of the demand is appropriate). Defendant need not respond to demand no. 19 as currently drafted; but plaintiff may re-serve a clearer version of this demand that explains its relevance to defendant's counterclaim.

Plaintiff describes its fourth group of requests as seeking documents necessary to “raise questions about Mr. Edelman's credibility.” (NYSCEF No. 49 at 10.) The court finds plaintiff's demand nos. 4 and 36 to be relevant to its prosecution and defense of the action and grants plaintiff's discovery request. Defendant need not, however, produce documents responsive to demand nos. 8 and 9.

*3 Plaintiff's fifth item includes its demand for documents related to its second document demand (i.e., post-EBT demand no. 3). Plaintiff is entitled to these documents to the same extent provided by the court in its discussion above of that document demand. Demand no. 3 is therefore denied as academic.

3. Finally, plaintiff seeks sanctions for “Defendants’ continued refusal to turn over documents and produce Mr. Edelman to continue his deposition.” (NYSCEF No. 49 at 1.) This court is not persuaded that defendants’ handling of discovery warrants sanctions under CPLR 3126.

According, it is

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion under CPLR 3124 seeking to compel Edelman Arts to comply with plaintiff's second set of document demands is granted to the extent set forth above, and otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion under CPLR 3124 seeking to compel Edelman Arts to comply with plaintiff's post-EBT demands is granted as to demand nos. 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36, 37, 38, and 40; and denied as to 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, and 41; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion under CPLR 3124 seeking to compel Edelman Arts to comply with plaintiff's post-EBT demands is denied as to demand nos. 19 and 20, without prejudice to those demands being re-drafted and re-served within 14 days of entry of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that Edelman Arts shall produce responsive documents within 45 days of entry of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion under CPLR 3126 seeking discovery sanctions is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this court for a preliminary conference on March 3, 2023.