## Facts

- A tenant’s infant child died after allegedly falling from an apartment window in a building owned and operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA).
- The child’s mother sued NYCHA for negligence, alleging failure to provide appropriate window safeguards (including window guards).
- During pretrial procedure, the plaintiff served NYCHA with an 18-item notice to admit under CPLR 3123 seeking admissions on ownership/control, duties regarding window guards, tenant status and knowledge, and certain legal/compliance matters.
- NYCHA moved for a protective order to strike the notice to admit (in whole) and to strike the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection.
- The trial court denied NYCHA’s motion, and NYCHA appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a CPLR 3123 notice to admit may require admissions that effectively seek material issues, ultimate facts, conclusory assertions, or legal interpretations in a negligence action.
2. Whether items duplicating admissions already made in pleadings (or otherwise not genuinely disputed) must be stricken as improper uses of CPLR 3123.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to strike some or all of the plaintiff’s notice to admit and related discovery demands.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the order by striking notice-to-admit items 3 through 7, 11, 16, and 18, and otherwise affirmed.
- NYCHA was required to respond to the remaining notice-to-admit items within 20 days after service of the appellate order.
- The court permitted items directed to uncontested background facts and NYCHA’s responsibility/knowledge (including ownership, maintenance responsibility, window-guard duties as understood by NYCHA, and tenant status/awareness where the answer was equivocal).
- The court struck items that duplicated matters already admitted in NYCHA’s amended answer or were otherwise improper for a notice to admit.

## Legal Principles

- A CPLR 3123 notice to admit is intended to eliminate from dispute matters that are factually relevant but not genuinely contested, reducing unnecessary proof at trial.
- A notice to admit may not be used to demand admissions of material issues, ultimate facts, or conclusory matters, nor to obtain legal interpretations.
- Requests that duplicate matters already admitted in pleadings are improper because CPLR 3123 is not designed to force re-admission of conceded points.
- A notice to admit may probe a party’s understanding of its own duties and responsibilities when framed to streamline proof, but it may not require a party to interpret the law generally or assess another’s legal compliance.
- Courts may review a notice to admit item-by-item, striking improper items while enforcing proper requests.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that CPLR 3123 is a limited device for confirming uncontested facts, not a substitute for broad discovery or legal briefing; it struck several improper admission requests but required NYCHA to answer the remaining items directed to appropriate factual matters and the defendant’s responsibility and knowledge.


Villa v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 107 A.D.2d 619, 484 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dep’t 1985)