Evans v. Roman
This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3693 (Evans v. Roman) 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.
Opinion
| Evans v Roman |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03693 |
| Decided on May 9, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on May 9, 2019
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Oing, JJ.
9292N 9291
v
Dr. Henry Roman, M.D., Defendant, Noakita Allen, R.N., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.
Drabkin & Margulies, New York (Robert W. Margulies of counsel), for Noakita Allen, R.N., Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, and Split Rock Multi-Care Center, LLC, respondents.
Egan Law Firm, New York (Susan B. Egan of counsel), for RLD Medical Services, P.C., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 11, 2018, which granted defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to provide cell phone records and produce her cell phone for inspection by defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and defendants' motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 21, 2018, which, in effect, granted plaintiff's motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The court should not have directed plaintiff to produce her phone and all of the material stored on it because defendants failed to meet the threshold for disclosure by showing that their request for plaintiff's cell phone was reasonably calculated to yield information material and necessary to its defense (see Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 664-665 [2018]; AllianceBernstein L.P. v Atha, 100 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2012]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 9, 2019
CLERK
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 NY Slip Op 3693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-roman-nyappdiv-2019.