Davidson v. Steer/Peanut Gallery

277 A.D.2d 965, 715 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11359
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 965 (Davidson v. Steer/Peanut Gallery) 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
Davidson v. Steer/Peanut Gallery, 277 A.D.2d 965, 715 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the motion. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained while trying to prevent the removal of a patron from The Steer/ Peanut Gallery (defendant), a restaurant and bar. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to preclude plaintiff from offering medical testimony at trial based on plaintiff’s failure to provide reports of “physicians that have treated the plaintiff in connection with the injuries and conditions for which discovery [sic] is sought” in response to defendant’s discovery demand. Supreme Court erred in determining that plaintiff complied with the disclosure requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.17 (h) by providing defendant with authorizations for certain medical records. Although plaintiff responded to defendant’s discovery demand by asserting that he did not have reports from physicians who examined him, he is not relieved of the obligation to ensure that the reports of physicians who examined him in connection with the litigation are [966]*966prepared, and to provide them to defendant (see, Kelly v Tarnowski, 213 AD2d 1054, 1055; Pierson v Yourish, 122 AD2d 202, 203). Having placed his physical condition in controversy, plaintiff “may not insulate from disclosure material necessary to the defense concerning that condition” (Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 610). Therefore, having determined that plaintiff failed to comply with defendant’s discovery demand, we reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on defendant’s motion (see, CPLR 3126). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, LaMendola, J. — Discovery.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Hamilton v. Miller
15 N.E.3d 1199 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
Bailey v. Owens
2004 NY Slip Op 50316(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
Gromoll v. Bertolino
4 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Comunale v. Sealand Contrs. Corp.
New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, 2004
Comunale v. Sealand Contractors Corp.
2 Misc. 3d 672 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 965, 715 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-steerpeanut-gallery-nyappdiv-2000.