Category: NYCRR

RJ and CE and EE

Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v Shaw, 2010 NY Slip Op 00087 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

II. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment precludes reconsideration of all claims which could have or should have been litigated in the prior proceedings against the same party (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347). The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in the prior action or proceeding, and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 501-502). Once the party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel establishes that the identical issue was "material" (emphasis supplied) to a prior judicial or quasi-judicial determination, the party to be estopped bears the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action or proceeding (id.). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the proponent of the doctrine of collateral estoppel need not demonstrate that the particular theory in support of a cause of action was actually raised and litigated in the prior action or proceeding (see Matter of Schulz v New York State Legislature, 278 AD2d 710, 711; Williams v Steinberg, 211 AD2d 597; Lanzano v City of New York, 202 AD2d 378, 379; Sokol v Sokol, 113 F3d 303, 306).

Where the prior adjudication involved the same parties and the same cause of action, res judicata applies. "Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the parties on the same cause of action . . . As a general rule, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347, quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; see Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d 32).

Union St. Tower, LLC v Richmond, 2011 NY Slip Op 03834 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The doctrine of res judicata " operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding'" (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007, quoting Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380). To determine what "factual grouping" constitutes a "transaction," the court must consider how " the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether . . . their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193, quoting Restatement, Judgments 2d [Tent Draft No. 1], § 61; see Braunstein v Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53). Under New York's transactional approach to the doctrine of res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357).

The first and second counterclaims in this action are barred by res judicata because those claims could have been resolved in the March 2004 action (see Jennings v City of Glens Falls Indus. Dev. Agency, 9 AD3d 773, 774). These counterclaims, when compared with the causes of action in the March 2004 action "are related in time, space, origin, [and] motivation" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 192-193). They (1) originate from the identical agreement, (2) span the same period of time, (3) involve the same chief participants, and (4) involve the same motivation of Richmond to reclaim an ownership interest in Lot 4. "Under these circumstances, it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that the over-all transaction here formed a convenient trial unit and that this view conforms to reasonable expectations" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 193 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from "relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same" (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Two elements must be established: (1) that "the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive in the present action"; and (2) that the precluded party "must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]). Collateral estoppel is applicable to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, including the WCB (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d at 499; O'Gorman v Journal News Westchester, 2 AD3d 815, 816 [2003]; Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History, 297 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]).

Here, the Decision of the WCB does not collaterally estop the defendant from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer, because there is no indication in the record that this was a disputed issue at the workers' compensation proceeding or that the WCB specifically adjudicated this issue (see Weitz v Anzek Constr. Corp., 65 AD3d 678, 679 [2009]; Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that the defendant was collaterally estopped from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer.

John Hollings, Inc. v Nick & Duke, LLC, 83 AD3d 444 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The issue whether plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of its use of the subject premises was fully and fairly litigated, and necessarily decided, in the prior Civil Court proceeding (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Plaintiff's eviction was based on uncured lease violations alone and had no connection to the wrongs it alleges against defendants in this action.

We find that plaintiff's conduct in commencing this action was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Town of Huntington v Beechwood Carmen Bldg. Corp., 82 AD3d 1203 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" (Goldstein v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 AD3d 821, 821 [2006]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d 890, 893 [2010]). "A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata" (Liberty Assoc. v Etkin, 69 AD3d 681, 682-683 [2010]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d at 893). Here, the Town's current claims against SBJ were either raised or could have been raised in the previous action which was discontinued with prejudice against SBJ and, thus, the Town is precluded under principles of res judicata from litigating claims against SBJ arising from the same transaction. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against SBJ.

OrthoTec, LLC v Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04533 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

To be sure, "collateral estoppel will bar the subsequent independent action . . . if . . . the moving party was in fact given a hearing on the motion that was the equivalent of a trial with oral testimony" (id. at 668, 123 Cal Rptr 2d at 170-171 [emphasis added]). However, plaintiff was not given such a hearing. It was given the opportunity for a hearing, but it chose not to exercise that opportunity.

Defendants' reliance on Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987]) is unavailing, since the evidence on the motion which led to the decision to which defendants seek to give preclusive effect was indeed restricted.

Dier v Suffolk County Water Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03993 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the appellant is estopped from asserting a defense based on the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim. Equitable estoppel against a public corporation will lie only when the conduct of the public corporation was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage a party from serving a timely notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party (see Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662; Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d 1110, 1111; Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d 1127; Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the appellant engaged in any misleading conduct that would support a finding of equitable estoppel (see Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d at 1111; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Walter H. Poppe Gen. Contr. v Town of Ramapo, 280 AD2d 667, 668; Cappadonna v New York City Tr. Auth., 187 AD2d 691, 692; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470). The fact that the appellant conducted an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to making its motion to dismiss does not justify a finding of estoppel (see Hochberg v City of New York, 63 NY2d 665; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Rodriguez v City of New York, 169 AD2d 532, 533; Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 AD2d 492). Accordingly, the appellant's motion, in effect, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) should have been granted.

Disclosure, lots of it

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR § 4504. Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse

CPLR R. 3120 Discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, testing, copying or photographing

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

CPLR R. 3124 Failure to disclose; motion to compel disclosure

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

Congel v Malfitano, 2011 NY Slip Op 04406 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of his cross motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert counterclaims pursuant to Partnership Law §§ 73 and 74. Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see CPLR 3025[b]), the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Brooks v Robinson, 56 AD3d 406, 407; Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227). Here, the defendant's proposed amended counterclaims were patently devoid of merit.

CPLR 3101(a) provides for, inter alia, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Although the phrase "material and necessary" must be "interpreted liberally" in favor of disclosure so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70), a party does not have the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf, 59 AD3d 408, 410; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Further, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728).

On the defendant's prior appeal, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for, inter alia, further proceedings on the issue of damages caused to the plaintiffs by the defendant's wrongful dissolution of the Poughkeepsie Galleria Company Partnership, as well as a determination of the value of the defendant's interest in that partnership at the time of the wrongful dissolution (see Congel v Malfitano, 61 AD3d 810; Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]). Given that the remaining issues to be resolved in this matter are narrow (see Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]), the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery and providing for an expedited discovery schedule.

Thompson v Dallas BBQ, 2011 NY Slip Op 04451 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, "[a] court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" (Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754, 754, quoting CPLR 3126). The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123; Bernal v Singh, 72 AD3d 716). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kyung Soo Kim v Goldmine Realty, Inc., 73 AD3d 709; Moray v City of Yonkers, 72 AD3d 766).

Here, there was no such clear showing that the defendants' conduct was willful and contumacious (see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 69 AD3d 557). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' answer.

Gille v Long Beach City School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 04202 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While it is unclear whether the school district negligently lost or intentionally destroyed key evidence (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027; Baglio v St. John's Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343), it is uncontested that the school district is unable to locate the window shade, the very instrumentality giving rise to the infant plaintiff's injuries. However, because the determination of spoliation sanctions is within the broad discretion of the trial court (see Iamiceli v General Motors Corp., 51 AD3d 635; Barnes v Paulin, 52 AD3d 754; Dennis v City of New York, 18 AD3d 599), the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for its determination of the cross motion on the merits (see American Fed. of School Adm'rs, AFL-CIO v Council of Adm'rs & Supervisors, 266 AD2d 417, 418; Polera Bldg. Corp. v New York School Constr. Auth., 262 AD2d 295).

Lopez v Retail Prop. Trust, 2011 NY Slip Op 04008 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see Wigand v Modlin, 82 AD3d 1213; Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). The compliance conference order dated February 17, 2010, warning the plaintiff that failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action, did not mandate that all discovery be complete prior to the filing of the note of issue. Even though the defendant Kone, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), was impeding discovery, the plaintiff filed a conditional note of issue as directed by the compliance conference order. It was not until after the filing of the conditional note of issue that the defendant moved for a protective order with respect to the plaintiff's discovery requests, on the ground that they were untimely. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's cross motion to compel the defendant to comply with outstanding discovery should have been granted (see Karakostas v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 306 AD2d 381, 382; Schmitt v Carl Meyer's Hof, Inc., 86 AD2d 985).

Olkovetsy v Friedwald Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04015 (App. Div. 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 4504(a), information obtained by, among others, professional nursing personnel in attending to a patient in a professional capacity and "which [is] necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity" is privileged. As a general rule, disclosure of the name and address of a nonparty patient who may have been a witness to an alleged act of negligence or malpractice does not violate the patient's privilege of confidentiality of treatment (see Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 91 AD2d 1033, 1034; see also Matter of Grand Jury Investigation in N.Y. County, 98 NY2d 525, 530-531), provided that the requesting party "is not seeking to identify the patient by reference to the medical treatment he [or she] received" (Matter of Seymour, 288 AD2d 894, 894).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, in light of the broad range of services provided in a nursing home, the information requested by the plaintiff did not fall within the ambit of CPLR 4504(a) (see generally Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; cf. Gunn v Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435, 437). Additionally, the information demanded by the plaintiff was necessary to the prosecution of the action and, as limited by the Supreme Court to the period from January 1, 2005, through February 28, 2005, and to only the residents of the decedent's particular unit of residency, the demand was not overly broad or unduly burdensome (see Grant v PALJR, LLC, 64 AD3d 750, 751).

Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v Viraj Group., 2011 NY Slip Op 04040 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10). "[I]n a contract action[,] a memorandum sufficient to meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575; see Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372, 378-379). "If an agreement is not reasonably certain in its material terms, there can be no legally enforceable contract" (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482, cert denied 498 US 816; see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109). Thus, "a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable" (Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d at 109; see 2004 McDonald Ave. Realty, LLC v 2004 McDonald Ave. Corp., 50 AD3d 1021; Andor Group v Benninghoff, 219 AD2d 573). Further, while General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) applies to contracts implied in law to pay reasonable compensation (see Snyder v Bronfman, 13 NY3d 504), in an action to recover reasonable compensation, "a sufficient memorandum need only evidence the fact of plaintiff's employment by defendant to render the alleged services" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d at 575-576)."The obligation of the defendant to pay reasonable compensation for the services is then implied" (id. at 576). Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the statute of frauds, as certain e-mail correspondence (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[b][4]; Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v 2615 E. 17 St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d 476, 477; see also Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d at 379; Aloisi v Coin Phones, 157 AD2d 688) was sufficient to set forth an objective standard for determining the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff as a finder's fee, since it was tied to an extrinsic event, i.e., it was expressed as a percentage of the price paid by the defendants for the located acquisition opportunity, thus rendering the terms definite and enforceable (see Tonkery v Martina, 78 NY2d 893; Novello v 215 Rockaway, LLC, 70 AD3d 909; Edge Mgt. Corp. v Crossborder Exch. Corp., 304 AD2d 422; cf. MP Innovations, Inc. v Atlantic Horizon Intl., Inc., 72 AD3d 571).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting, upon reargument, the plaintiff's motion to compel a deposition of nonparty Neeraj Kochhar. "[A] corporation has the right in the first instance to determine which of its representatives will appear for an examination before trial" (Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d 417, 417-418; see Aronson v Im, 81 AD3d 577, 577; Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967; Mercado v Alexander, 227 AD2d 391). The moving party that is seeking additional depositions has the burden of demonstrating "(1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case" (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627; see Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927; Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven, 74 AD3d 1049; Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d 930, 932-933; Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d at 418). Here, the plaintiff satisfied this burden by demonstrating that the representative produced by the defendants for deposition did not have sufficient knowledge of the events giving rise to the complaint (see Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967), and that there was a substantial likelihood that Neeraj Kochhar possessed information which was material and necessary to the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of a finder's fee (see Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; cf. Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d at 932-933).

Waiver

Fernandez v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 04111 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiff has waived her claim that defendants' failure to produce "legible" photographs of the underside of the desk after the accident required an adverse inference that such photographs would have provided notice. The record shows that she was aware of the photographs yet filed a note of issue certifying that discovery was complete (see Escourse v City of New York, 27 AD3d 319 [2006]). In any event, the photographs would not have been probative as to notice, since the track was not visible until after the drawer fell.

Oh discovery, where art thou

Witherspoon v Surat Realty Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 02380 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to strike the plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars, including the particulars of the plaintiff's left shoulder surgery. Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing "continuing special damages and disabilities" without leave of the court if it alleges "no new cause of action . . . or new injury." Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars (see Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84, 87; Maraviglia v Lokshina, 68 AD3d 1066, 1067; Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 798, 800; Zenteno v Geils, 17 AD3d 457, 458), rather than an amended or new bill of particulars. Furthermore, there was no showing of prejudice to the defendants, as the supplemental bill of particulars was served more than 30 days prior to trial and the Supreme Court directed the parties to conduct further pretrial proceedings (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Maraviglia v Lokshina, 68 AD3d at 1067; Fortunato v Personal Woman's Care, P.C., 31 AD3d 370, 371).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. A motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness made more than 20 days after their service will be granted only where "a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect" or upon "good cause shown" (22 NYCRR 202.21[e]; see Torres v Saint Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs., 71 AD3d 873; Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 69 AD3d 559, 561). The defendants failed to satisfy these requirements (see Schenk v Maloney, 266 AD2d 199; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 139; Stella v Ahmed, 223 AD2d 698).

Buxbaum v Castro, 2011 NY Slip Op 01967 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." However, the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531; see Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendant to permit him and/or his "authorized computer forensic experts" to "impound, clone and inspect" certain computer equipment, including hard drives and other digital data storage devices, possessed by the defendant (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531).

Muzio v Napolitano, 2011 NY Slip Op 01987 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The defendants in this medical malpractice action conducted an interview of the plaintiff's treating physician, a nonparty, without obtaining a valid authorization pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub L No 104-191, 110 Stat 1936 [1996]). Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff placed her medical condition in controversy, the defendants were required to obtain an authorization expressly permitting an interview with her treating physician prior to conducting the interview (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393; Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 65 AD3d 176). 

Since any information obtained by the defendants from the interview was "improperly . . . obtained" (CPLR 3103[c]), the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's pretrial motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(c) for a protective order precluding the defendants from calling her treating physician to testify at trial as an expert witness for the defense, and from introducing, at trial, the information obtained from the interview (see Straub v Yalamanchili, 58 AD3d 1050; Surgical Design Corp. v Correa, 21 AD3d 409; Keschecki v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 5 Misc 3d 539).

Wigand v Modlin, 2011 NY Slip Op 02654 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

In this action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant moved, on the eve of trial, inter alia, to direct the plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination (hereinafter IME). Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued a written order dated April 16, 2009, which, among other things, directed the plaintiff to appear for the IME. The plaintiff then moved, in effect, for leave to reargue her opposition to that branch of the defendant's motion which was to direct her to appear for the IME. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its prior determination. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing, requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). However, the Supreme Court erred in adhering to its determination granting that branch of the defendant's motion, made on the eve of trial, which was to direct the plaintiff to appear for an IME. The defendant failed to offer evidence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances that developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness to justify relieving him of the consequences of his failure to conduct a timely medical examination of the plaintiff (see Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Manzo v City of New York, 62 AD3d 964, 965; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 138).

 

Disqualification, etc. 2106 too.

Midwood Chayim Aruchim Dialysis Assoc., Inc. v Brooklyn Dialysis, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 02639 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"The basis of a disqualification motion is an allegation of a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a current or former client" (Rowley v Waterfront Airways, 113 AD2d 926, 927; see Matter of Kelly, 23 NY2d 368, 375-376; Ogilvie v McDonald's Corp., 294 AD2d 550, 552). However, "[d]isqualification denies a party's right to representation by the attorney of its choice" (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443; see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131), and may create "significant hardships" for that party (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 310; see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d at 131; S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d at 443).

Accordingly, where the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) are invoked in litigation, courts "are not constrained to read the rules literally or effectuate the intent of the drafters, but look to the rules as guidelines to be applied with due regard for the broad range of interests at stake" (Niesig v Team I, 76 NY2d 363, 369-370; see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d at 443). It is the Supreme Court's responsibility to balance the competing interests, and "[t]he disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" (Falk v Gallo, 73 AD3d 685, 685; see Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 292; Matter of Erlanger [Erlanger], 20 NY2d 778, 779; Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp. v Turcios, 41 AD3d 802, 802; Flores v Willard J. Price Assoc., LLC, 20 AD3d 343, 344; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 101 AD2d 268, 277). Under the circumstances present here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the defendant's attorney (see Campbell v McKeon, 75 AD3d 479, 480; Kushner v Herman, 215 AD2d 633, 633; Matter of Fleet v Pulsar Constr. Corp., 143 AD2d 187, 189; Lopez v Precision Papers, 99 AD2d 507, 508; cf. Morris v Morris, 306 AD2d 449, 452).

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v Longmire, 2011 NY Slip Op 02067 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiff law firm demonstrated that defendant's counsel played a vital role in the final settlement negotiations flowing from a settlement offer that plaintiff had allegedly previously procured and that defendant client later accepted, that the negotiations were an important part of the underlying dispute, that defendant's counsel was likely to be a key witness at trial, and that his proposed testimony would be adverse to his client's interests (see Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacher, 299 AD2d 64, 75-76 [2002]; Martinez v Suozzi, 186 AD2d 378 [1992]).

While plaintiff improperly submitted the affirmation, rather than affidavit, of a partner (see CPLR 2106), under the circumstances, "this defect was merely a technical procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the defendant" (see Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1989]; see CPLR 2001).

 

Consolidaton and sanctions: CPLR § 602

CPLR § 602

Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 2011 NY Slip Op 01430 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"A motion for consolidation is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and absent a showing of substantial prejudice by the party opposing the motion, consolidation is proper where there are common questions of law and fact" (RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate, as there were no common questions of law and fact. The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in granting the cross motion of the plaintiffs in Action Nos. 1 and 2 to impose sanctions against the appellant (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749).

22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2)

22 NYCRR 202.7 Calendaring of motions; uniform notice of motion form; affirmation of good faith

Garcia v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 00629 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered December 24, 2009, which granted plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answers of defendants City of New York, 1515 Bruckner Blvd. LLC, Citywide Contractors LLC and Kaila Construction Corporation unless they appear for their respective examinations before trial within 60 days of service of a copy of the order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 

Defendants failed to comply with a preliminary conference order and two compliance conference orders issued over a period of 14 months to produce witnesses for examinations before trial. However, given counsel's failure to file an affirmation in compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2), it was a provident exercise of discretion to provide defendants with a final opportunity to produce witnesses for examinations before trial (see Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170 [2004]).

The bold is mine.

No-Fault with a tiny tiiiiiny tap of CPLR

caddyshack

CPLR R. 2214 Motion papers; service; time

CPLR R. 4518 Business records

22 NYCRR § 208.17 Notice of trial where all parties appear by attorney.

22 NYCRR § 208.4  Papers filed in court; index number; form; label.

CPLR R. 2106 Affirmation of truth of statement by attorney, physician, osteopath or dentis

CPLR § 3123 Admissions as to matters of fact, papers, documents and photographs

A relative ton of no- fault decisions came out today from the Appellate Term, Second Department.  Again, I'm not posting them because you care, but because It's easy for me to find cases when I post them.  For serious discussion, head over to JT and NFP.

There are, however, some interesting procedural nuances in the decisions,  making them almost relevant here.

PEERS

Stephen Fealy, M.D., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51442(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

We note, at the outset, that plaintiff's "Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition" is, in reality, a sur-reply, for the submission of which no showing of "good cause" had been made and which should not have been considered by the Civil Court and has not been reviewed on this appeal (see CPLR 2214 [c]; McMullin v Walker, 68 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; Graffeo v Paciello, [*2]46 AD3d 613, 615 [2007]; Flores v Stankiewicz, 35 AD3d 804, 805 [2006]; Severino v Classic Collision, 280 AD2d 463 [2001]).

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Muscatello v City of New York, 215 AD2d  463 [1995]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "It is axiomatic that summary judgment requires issue-finding rather than issue-determination and that resolution of issues of credibility is not appropriate" (Greco v Posillico, 290 AD2d 532, 532 [2002] [citation omitted]). The court, on a motion for summary judgment, should not determine issues of credibility or the probability of success on the merits, but should only determine whether there is a triable issue of fact (Venetal v City of New York, 21 AD3d 1087 [2005]; Greco, 290 AD2d 532). The existence of triable issues of fact precludes a finding of a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Wilson-Toby v Bushkin, 72 AD3d 810 [2010]; see Brown v Outback Steakhouse, 39 AD3d 450, 451 [2007]; Gray v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 245 AD2d 337 [1997]; Muscatello, 215 AD2d at 464).

Although defendant's papers established, prima facie, based on objective medical evidence, that the assignor's injuries did not arise from the accident, we find that the affirmation in opposition, written by Dr. Fealy, the surgeon who actually performed the procedure on the assignor, read in conjunction with the other medical and hospital reports indicating that the assignor had complained of left knee pain within days of the accident, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact that must be resolved at trial.

Read JT's comments.

Hillcrest Radiology Assoc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51467(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant annexed to its papers an affirmed peer review report, which found the MRIs in question to be medically unnecessary. However, also annexed to the moving papers were defendant's independent medical examination report, which found one of the MRIs to be medically necessary, and other reports that contradicted facts set forth in the peer review report. Since defendant's moving papers are contradictory as to whether there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue, defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, defendant's motion was properly denied (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

There is a Golia dissent.

Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Larendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51452(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

CPLR R. 3212(f)

VERIFICATION

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51456(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Although defendant demonstrated that it had timely requested verification of the claim (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), defendant failed to establish that plaintiff did not provide the requested verification. Defendant's litigation examiner did not even allege that the requested verification was outstanding, and defendant's attorney failed to demonstrate that she had personal knowledge to support her assertion of defendant's non-receipt of such documents (see Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455, 456 [2006]; Feratovic v Lun Wah, Inc., 284 AD2d 368, 368 [2001]; V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins., 20 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51473[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

There is a Golia "atta boy" at the end.

Total Family Chiropractic v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51470(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

In an attempt to establish that the time period in which it had to pay or deny the claims was tolled due to outstanding verification requests, defendant relied upon spreadsheets annexed to the affidavit of its claim representative. However, because the claim representative did not establish that the spreadsheets constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; Palisades Collection, LLC v Kedik, 67 AD3d 1329, 1330-1331 [2009]; Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]), defendant has not shown that it made timely verification requests.

While defendant has failed to demonstrate that it is not precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), in any event, defendant is not precluded from raising the defense of fraudulent procurement of the insurance policy (see Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 [2000]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 8 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The certified transcripts of plaintiff's assignors' examinations under oath, annexed to defendant's motion papers, support defendant's assertion that the assignors' testimony at an examination before trial would be material and necessary to the defense of fraudulent procurement of an insurance policy (see CPLR 3101 [a]). Since plaintiff served the notice of trial two weeks after defendant served its answer and it is uncontroverted that defendant timely moved to vacate the notice of trial within 20 days of its receipt of same (see Uniform Rules for Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [c]), the branch of defendant's motion seeking to strike the notice of trial is granted. However, as plaintiff's assignors are not directors, members or employees of plaintiff, defendant must subpoena them to compel their appearance at examinations before trial (see CPLR 3016 [b]; see also A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Inso Co., 14 Misc 3d 143[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50384[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 13, 2009 is vacated, the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon the claim form dated March 22, 2007, the branch of defendant's motionseeking to strike the notice of trial and to compel plaintiff's assignors to attend examinations before trial is granted to the extent of striking the notice of trial, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

So the NOT was stricken so that defendant could issue a non-party subpoena for an EBT.  What happens when the non-party doesn't appear, assuming, of course, that the non-party doesn't appear.  It would make sense for the Appellate Term to provide some guidance.  Read JT's comments.

Almost forgot. There is an article in the NYSBA journal on non-party discovery by David Horowitz.

Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51455(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

The "who cares if he doesnt know how he knows, he's a partner" exception to Fogel.

MVAIC (condition precedent or coverage or both)

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51454(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Under the circumstances presented, the Civil Court should have considered the affidavit submitted by MVAIC's claim representative rather than sua sponte rejecting it due to a de minimis violation of Uniform Rules for the Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.4. The submissions in support of MVAIC's motion for summary judgment made a prima facie showing that plaintiff's assignor had failed to timely file a notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a]), and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its assignor had timely filed a notice of claim or sought leave to file a late notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [b], [c]). Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 20, 2009 is vacated, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

NOT NO-FAULT

Ferrara v De Ming Song, 2010 NY Slip Op 51472(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

The Civil Court granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant had made out a prima facie case and that, among other things, the affirmed reports of plaintiff's medical provider in Florida, submitted in opposition to defendant's motion, were not in admissible form, as the doctor was not licensed in the State of New York and, thus, was not authorized to execute an affirmation under CPLR 2106. The court noted, however, that had the reports been in admissible form, they would have been sufficient to demonstrate a serious injury.

Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to renew defendant's motion and, upon renewal, to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that triable issues of fact exist. In support of the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his Florida medical provider, sworn to before a notary public commissioned by the State of Florida, and resubmitted the provider's reports. The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the condition that plaintiff's attorneys pay the sum of $100 to defendant's attorneys as costs, and the sum of $100 to the New York State Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. This appeal by defendant ensued in which the sole issue raised is that the Civil Court erred in granting plaintiff leave to renew.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to renew, thereby allowing plaintiff the opportunity to submit its papers in proper form (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Arkin v Resnick, 68 AD3d 692 [2009]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389 [2008]; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; Joseph v Joseph, 24 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51719[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Shaw v Looking Glass [*2]Assoc., LP, 8 AD3d 100 [2004]; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657 [2003]; Ramos v Dekhtyar, 301 AD2d 428 [2003]). We note that defendant has raised no objection to the form of plaintiff's resubmitted papers.

Nicholas Cabrini, Inc. v Hagenbart, 2010 NY Slip Op 51443(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

CPLR 3123 (a) requires a party to respond to a notice to admit within 20 days of service of the notice "or within such further time as the court may allow," and further provides that "the party to whom the request is directed [must] serve[] upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters" (emphasis added).

After reviewing defendants' response to plaintiff's notice to admit, wherein defendants explained why they could not either admit or deny the first item in plaintiff's notice to admit and denied the other two items in the notice, we find that the Civil Court properly determined that defendants' response was not so evasive as to be a nullity.

Turning to the timeliness of defendants' response to the notice, in Alford v Progressive Equity Funding Corp. (144 AD2d 756 [1988]), a case analogous to the instant case, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on December 2, 1987, based on the defendants' failure to respond to the plaintiffs' notice to admit, which had been served on November 5, 1987. On December 7, 1987, the defendants served a response to the plaintiffs' notice to admit. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and, on appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the Supreme Court had properly exercised its discretionary power to extend the time within which the defendants had to respond to the plaintiffs' notice to admit. The Appellate Division further held that since the defendants had not admitted all of the material facts at issue, the Supreme Court had properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Similarly, defendants in the case at bar were 15 days late in serving their response to plaintiff's notice to admit. Thus, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in extending the time within which defendants had to respond to the notice. Since defendants have not admitted all of the material facts at issue, the Civil Court properly denied the branch of plaintiff's motion which sought summary judgment (see id.). Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

What, no cite to Dan Med?  Bajaj?  I'm disappointed.  If any of you want to read further on the use of NTAs in no-fault.  I co-authored an article in the NYLJ on the issue with Dave Barshay, the new author of NFP, and while the AT has not seen fit to cite to it, the Appellate Division has.  Click here to get all the links and what not.

On Discovery

 These are some of the leftover cases from last week and maybe one or two
from this week.

CPLR
§ 3126 Penalties for refusal to
comply with order or to disclose

Cobenas v Ginsburg Dev. Cos., LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 05718 (App. Div.,
2nd, 2010)

In the absence of evidence that
the appellant willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for an examination
before trial, the Supreme Court should not have stricken his answer (see Cambry v Lincoln
Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081; Conciatori v Port
Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 46 AD3d 501). The appropriate
remedy was to preclude the appellant from offering any testimony at trial (see Patel v DeLeon,
43 AD3d 432; Williams v Ryder, TRS,
Inc., 29 AD3d 784).

22 NYCRR 202.17 Exchange
of medical reports in personal injury and wrongful death actions

Shichman v Yasmer, 2010 NY Slip Op 05751 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The defendant here met his initial
burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which
the plaintiffs do not dispute on appeal. In opposition to the defendant's
motion, the plaintiffs principally relied on their expert's affidavit. However,
as the defendant argued and the Supreme Court found, the plaintiffs failed to
satisfy their obligations pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17 to serve the defendant
with a report concerning their expert's physical examination of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
precluding so much of the plaintiffs' expert's affidavit as was derived from
the expert's physical examination of the plaintiff (see Neils v Darmochwal, 6 AD3d 589, 590). However, under the
circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its
discretion in precluding the plaintiffs' expert's opinions in the affidavit
which were based on other evidence in the case ( id.). Based on a review of the affidavit, it is clear that the
expert's opinions derived from other sources were not "inextricably
intertwined" with his or her opinions derived from the physical
examination of the plaintiff (id.).
The expert's opinion, with regard to certain conclusions, was not dependent or
based upon the physical examination. For example, the expert's conclusion that
the defendant deviated from accepted podiatric practice by performing the
procedures at issue at the neck of the first metatarsal rather than at the head
of the first metatarsal, as proper practice allegedly demanded, was based,
inter alia, on the defendant's own deposition testimony as well as the expert's
expertise.

 

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

(a)
Generally.
There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in
the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of
proof, by…

(d) Trial preparation

Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven, 2010 NY Slip Op 05382 (App. Div., 2nd,
2010)

While CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full
disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an
action" (see Allen v Crowell-Collier
Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406),
"unlimited disclosure is not permitted" (Harris v Pathmark Stores, Inc, 48
AD3d 631, 632 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see
Silcox v City of New York, 233
AD2d 494, 494). CPLR 3103(a) provides that a court may issue a protective order
denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating the use of any disclosure
device, in order to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment,
disadvantage, or other prejudice to the other party.

 

To show that additional depositions are necessary, it must be
demonstrated (1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient
knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) that there is a substantial
likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is
material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see Nazario v City of New York, 27
AD3d 439; Hayden v City of New York, 26
AD3d 262; Saxe v City of New York, 250
AD2d 751, 752; Carter v New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 AD2d 512; Zollner
v City of New York, 204 AD2d
626, 627). Since the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of demonstrating
these two elements, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion
for a protective order (see
Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803, 803-804; Barone
v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260
AD2d 417, 417-418; Saxe v City of New York, 250 AD2d at 752). 

 

Green v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y, 2010 NY Slip Op 05327 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

 

One reason it is so troubling that plaintiff was prejudiced in
this manner is that the situation defense counsel was attempting to solve with
his sudden introduction of an expert witness was of his own making. It arose
from defense counsel's litigation decision to use Mr. Green's treating
internist, Dr. Robert Bos, on his direct case to establish that Mr. Green had
been suicidal. Plaintiff did nothing to create the predicament in which the
defense found itself. Since the burden was always on defendant to overcome the
presumption and prove that Mr. Green committed suicide, and plaintiff had no
burden on the issue, defendant cannot possibly point to plaintiff's not calling
an expert to justify defendant's initial decision not to call its own expert.

 

The last decision is far longer than this blurb would suggest.  It’s worth reading.

Post Note of Issue Discovery and the “Wherefore” clause.

Don't get too caught up in the NOI discovery issue.  Read all the way down where the court discusses the "Wherefore" clause.  This is why you put in "such other, further, or different
relief" etc etc etc.

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note
of issue and certificate of readiness

Tirado v Miller, 2010 NY Slip Op 04364 (App. Term, 2nd, 2010)

A certificate of readiness certifies that all discovery is completed,
waived, or not required and that the action is ready for trial (see 22
NYCRR 202.21[b]). The effect of a statement of readiness is to
ordinarily foreclose further discovery (see Blondell v Malone, 91
AD2d 1201; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate
Corp., 74 AD2d 734; Bookazine Co. v J & A [*3]Bindery, 61 AD2d 919).

Discovery that is nevertheless sought after the filing of a note
of issue and certificate of readiness is governed by a different set of
procedural principles than discovery that is sought prior to the filing
of a note of issue. Pre-note discovery includes disclosure of "all
matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an
action" (see CPLR 3101[a]), which is to be liberally construed (see
Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Byck v
Byck, 294 AD2d 456, 457; U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v Carvel Corp., 190
AD2d 788). Post-note discovery, on the other hand, may only be sought
under two procedural circumstances set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.21. As
discussed by this Court in an opinion by Justice Feuerstein in Audiovox
Corp. v Benyamini (265 AD2d 135, 138), one method of obtaining
post-note discovery is to vacate the note of issue within 20 days of its
service pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), by merely showing that
discovery is incomplete and the matter is not ready for trial. The
second method, beyond that 20 days, requires that the movant, pursuant
to 22 NYCRR 202.21(d), meet a more stringent standard and demonstrate
"unusual or unanticipated circumstances and substantial prejudice"
absent the additional discovery (Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265
AD2d at 138; see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180, 181; Aviles
v 938 SCY Ltd., 283 AD2d 935, 936).

Here, it is not contested that the note of issue and certificate
of readiness were filed in February 2008. The note of issue was never
stricken as a result of any motion filed within the 20-day deadline set
forth in 22 NYCRR 202.21(a). Accordingly, any additional discovery
sought by the plaintiff from Travelers must meet the requirements of 22
NYCRR 202.21(d) that the discovery be needed because of "unusual or
unanticipated circumstances" and that its absence causes "substantial
prejudice."

We recognize that the trial court did not grant any unrequested
relief, but rather, granted the specific relief sought by the defendants
and Travelers in their motion of quashing the plaintiff's subpoena and,
in effect, granting a protective order. On appeal, the plaintiff takes
issue, inter alia, with the Supreme Court's having determined the motion
on a ground unrelated to the privilege and relevance issues briefed by
the parties. However, in rendering decisions on motions, trial courts
are not necessarily limited by the specific arguments raised by parties
in their submissions. CPLR 2214(a) provides that a notice of motion
shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the
supporting papers upon which it is based, the relief demanded, and the
grounds therefor. A court typically lacks the jurisdiction to grant
relief that is not requested in the moving papers (see McGuire v
McGuire, 29 AD3d 963, 965; NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Prol Props.
Corp., 18 AD3d 525, 527). The notice of motion in this instance
sought an order quashing the subpoena and granting a protective order on
the limited grounds of privilege and irrelevance. However, the notice
of motion also contained a general prayer, for "such other and further
relief as [the] [c]ourt may deem just and proper."

General relief clauses, for "such other, further, or different
relief," are often included in notices of motion by practitioners to
cover the possibility that the appropriate relief is not what the movant
has specifically asked for, "but is close enough to enable the court to
grant it" (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY,
Book 7B, CPLR C2214:5). The presence of a general relief clause enables
the court to grant relief that is not too dramatically unlike that which
is actually sought, as long as the relief is supported by proof in the
papers and the court is satisfied that no party is prejudiced (see
Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918; HCE Assoc. v 3000 Watermill Lane
Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 774; Lanaris v Mutual Benefit Life Ins.
Co., 9 AD2d 1015).

The bold is mine.

Late–but not too late–Jury Demand

Rosenbaum v Schlossman, 2010 NY Slip Op 03494 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.),
entered March 30, 2009, which denied defendants' motion to vacate the
note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court,
Justice and entry date, which denied defendants' motion to stay a
scheduled nonjury trial of this matter and compel the Clerk to accept a
jury demand, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct the Clerk to
accept the jury demand nunc pro tunc, and, in view of the interim stay
of trial previously ordered by this Court, the remainder of the appeal
from said order unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

Defendants should be permitted to serve and file a late jury
demand given that the lateness, by only five days, was due in part to
the late filing of the note of issue, and also given no intention by
defendants to waive a jury trial, a prompt motion by defendants to be
relieved of their default in timely filing a jury demand, and no
prejudice to plaintiff caused by the late jury demand (see A.S.L.
Enters. v Venus Labs., 264 AD2d 372, 373 [1999]). Defendants' motion
to vacate the note of issue was properly denied where defendants had
received copies of plaintiff's letter to the court requesting the
court's issuance of a written order memorializing a prior oral order
extending the time to file a note of issue, but did not object to the
requested relief or inform [*2]the court,
at that time, of their view that disclosure was incomplete (22 NYCRR
202.21[d]). We have considered and rejected defendants' remaining
contention.

The bold is mine.

Instead of simply writing that the remaining contention is "rejected" wouldn't it be nice if they said what the remaining contention was.