BLYASHUK, LYUDMILA v. v. DHALIWAL, M.D., GURPREET

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BLYASHUK, LYUDMILA v. v. DHALIWAL, M.D., GURPREET

99 A.D.3d 1222, 951 N.Y.2d 441

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 5, 2012

DocketCA 11-01938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 1222 (BLYASHUK, LYUDMILA v. v. DHALIWAL, M.D., GURPREET) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BLYASHUK, LYUDMILA v. v. DHALIWAL, M.D., GURPREET, 99 A.D.3d 1222, 951 N.Y.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*1223 Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for the alleged negligence of defendants in their care and treatment of plaintiff Lyudmila V Blyashuk. In appeal No. 1, Gurpreet Dhaliwal, M.D., Dilara Samadi, M.D. and Buffalo Medical Group (defendants) appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of their motion to strike the errata sheet relating to the deposition testimony of plaintiff Yevegniy Blyashuk, a Russian citizen who does not speak English. In appeal No. 2, defendants appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to produce documents regarding all laparoscopic surgeries performed by Samadi while he was an employee and shareholder of Buffalo Medical Group, including, but not limited to, operative reports and billing records from 1997 through February 12, 2008, with the names and identifying information of the patients redacted.

With respect to appeal No. 1, we reject defendants’ contention that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion to strike the errata sheet. At this juncture of the litigation, the court properly deferred the determination of the admissibility of the corrected testimony contained in the errata sheet until the time of trial or until raised in a summary judgment motion (see generally Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901, 902 [2008]).

We agree with defendants in appeal No. 2, however, that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion to compel them to disclose all of the documents regarding the laparoscopic surgeries performed by Samadi, including the operative reports and billing records of nonparty patients (see Grieco v Kaleida Health, 79 AD3d 1764, 1766 [2010]; Brandes v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 1 AD3d 551, 552 [2003]). Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1223 Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for the alleged negligence of defendants in their care and treatment of plaintiff Lyudmila V Blyashuk. In appeal No. 1, Gurpreet Dhaliwal, M.D., Dilara Samadi, M.D. and Buffalo Medical Group (defendants) appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of their motion to strike the errata sheet relating to the deposition testimony of plaintiff Yevegniy Blyashuk, a Russian citizen who does not speak English. In appeal No. 2, defendants appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to produce documents regarding all laparoscopic surgeries performed by Samadi while he was an employee and shareholder of Buffalo Medical Group, including, but not limited to, operative reports and billing records from 1997 through February 12, 2008, with the names and identifying information of the patients redacted.

With respect to appeal No. 1, we reject defendants’ contention that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion to strike the errata sheet. At this juncture of the litigation, the court properly deferred the determination of the admissibility of the corrected testimony contained in the errata sheet until the time of trial or until raised in a summary judgment motion (see generally Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901, 902 [2008]).

We agree with defendants in appeal No. 2, however, that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion to compel them to disclose all of the documents regarding the laparoscopic surgeries performed by Samadi, including the operative reports and billing records of nonparty patients (see Grieco v Kaleida Health, 79 AD3d 1764, 1766 [2010]; Brandes v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 1 AD3d 551, 552 [2003]). Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 1222, 951 N.Y.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blyashuk-lyudmila-v-v-dhaliwal-md-gurpreet-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack