MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Powers, J.), entered November 1, 2018 in Clinton County, which partially granted plaintiffs motion to, among other things, compel discovery, and (2) from an order of said court, entered July 22, 2019 in Clinton County, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.
As set forth in our prior decisions in this matter (176 A.D.3d 1274, 109 N.Y.S.3d 516 [2019]; 147 A.D.3d 1253, 47 N.Y.S.3d 769 [2017]; 116 A.D.3d 1264, 984 N.Y.S.2d 457 [2014]), plaintiff Christopher Porco was convicted of fatally attacking his father and attempting to murder his mother, plaintiff Joan Porco (People v. Porco, 71 A.D.3d 791, 792, 896 N.Y.S.2d 161 [2010], affd 17 N.Y.3d 877, 934 N.Y.S.2d 360, 958 N.E.2d 538 [2011], cert denied 566 U.S. 924, 132 S.Ct. 1860, 182 L.Ed.2d 649 [2012]). This action alleges that defendant violated plaintiffs statutory right to privacy, embodied in Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, by publicizing and broadcasting a docudrama about the events surrounding the crime, the crime itself and the subsequent investigation and trial.
Discovery in the action was stayed when, in July 2018, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint (see CPLR 3214[b]). In September 2018, plaintiffs moved for an order lifting the discovery stay, compelling defendant to respond to a February 2018 notice to produce and June 2018 interrogatories and allowing additional discovery to uncover evidence needed to oppose defendants summary judgment motion (see CPLR 3212[f]). Supreme Court partially granted that motion by an order, entered in November 2018, in which it lifted the stay to the limited extent of directing defendant to respond to the notice to produce and interrogatories. It further urged the parties to negotiate a schedule to complete that discovery, as well as to brief and argue the pending summary judgment motion.
Plaintiffs thereafter received responses from defendant that they found inadequate and were rebuffed in their March 2019 request for additional information and documentation. The result was a motion to compel defendant to comply with the March 2019 request. In an order entered in July 2019, Supreme Court denied the motion and set a deadline for plaintiffs to respond to defendants pending summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs represent that defendant then served both the November 2018 and July 2019 orders upon them with notice of entry (see CPLR 5513), and they appealed from both.
We affirm. With regard to that part of plaintiffs motions seeking to hold defendants summary judgment motion in abeyance pending further discovery (see CPLR 3212[f]), the onus was on plaintiffs “to provide some evidentiary basis for [their] claim that further discovery would yield material evidence and also ‘demonstrate how further discovery might reveal material facts in the movants exclusive knowledge’ ” (Rochester Linoleum & Carpet Ctr., Inc. v. Cassin, 61 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 878 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2009], quoting Scofield v. Trustees of Union Coll. in Town of Schenectady, 267 A.D.2d 651, 652, 699 N.Y.S.2d 570 [1999]; accord Arthur Brundage Inc. v. Morris, 189 A.D.3d 2032, 2032, 139 N.Y.S.3d 389 [2020]). Defendant based its motion for summary judgment upon the premise that the film was a materially accurate dramatization of newsworthy events involving plaintiffs and not, as plaintiffs suggested, an “invented biograph[y] ․ so infected with fiction, dramatization or embellishment that it cannot be said to fulfill the purpose of the newsworthiness exception” to the statutory right of privacy (Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 446, 706 N.Y.S.2d 52, 727 N.E.2d 549 [2000]; see Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 124, 128–129, 286 N.Y.S.2d 832, 233 N.E.2d 840 [1967]). Plaintiffs argued that, to oppose that motion, they were entitled to obtain evidence from, and depose witnesses connected to, defendant regarding inaccuracies in the film and defendants financial motivations in broadcasting it. Evidence of the inaccuracies in the film was not in defendants exclusive possession, however, and plaintiffs themselves would seemingly be in the best position to identify those inaccuracies given their firsthand knowledge of events. Moreover, the financial motivations of defendant were irrelevant to discerning the newsworthiness of the film, an assessment that is based upon the content of the film itself, and discovery regarding them would therefore not lead to the production of material evidence (see Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 N.Y.2d at 442, 706 N.Y.S.2d 52, 727 N.E.2d 549; Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 141, 490 N.Y.S.2d 735, 480 N.E.2d 349 [1985]). Thus, Supreme Court properly declined to direct further discovery before addressing defendants summary judgment motion (see Gersten–Hillman Agency, Inc. v. Heyman, 68 A.D.3d 1284, 1287–1288, 892 N.Y.S.2d 209 [2009]; Clochessy v. Gagnon, 58 A.D.3d 1008, 1009–1010, 870 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2009]).
Plaintiffs remaining arguments are academic in view of the decision of this Court granting defendants motion for summary judgment and dismissing the second amended complaint (Porco v. Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 195 A.D.3d 1351, 150 N.Y.S.3d 380 [appeal No. 531681, decided herewith]; see Lusins v. Cohen, 49 A.D.3d 1015, 1018, 853 N.Y.S.2d 685 [2008]).
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with costs.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.