Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

respondents in their summary-judgment motion request leave to amend their answers to include a
jury demand and a fifth counterclaim. Respondents' proposed amendments to their answers also
include separate affirmative defenses and counterclaims,[FN3] and amend the [*7]substance of their counterclaim for fraud, while leaving the
affirmative defense of fraud as above. Respondents' new counterclaim for fraud is that
"Petitioner and or petitioner's predecessor in interest committed fraud by misrepresenting subject
premises as a three (e) bedroom apartment. Respondent has been injured and suffered damages
as a result of same fraudulent conduct." (Proposed Amended Answer, Mar. 5, 2010, ¶
20-21.) Even as amended, respondents fall short of pleading fraud with particularity. Thus, their
counterclaim alleging fraud is stricken. In any event, this court does not have the jurisdiction to
consider counterclaims of fraud. Respondents' counterclaim for fraud is severed for a plenary
action, and in this regard the court notes that respondents allege fraud in their pending Supreme
Court action.

III. Respondent Chen's Disclosure Requests.

Disclosure in a summary proceeding "is allowed only by leave of court . . . because
discovery tends to prolong an action and is therefore inconsistent with the expeditious nature of a
special proceeding." (Plaza Operating Partners Ltd. v. IRM (U.S.A.) Inc., 143 Misc 2d
22, 23 [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County 1989].) A trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny
disclosure requests but must "balance the needs of the party seeking discovery against such
opposing interests as expedition and confidentiality." (Town of Pleasant Valley v. New York
State Bd. of Real Property Services, 253 AD2d 8, 16 [2d Dept 1999].) Disclosure requests