Green v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. City of New York

281 A.D.2d 193, 721 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2193

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 193 (Green v. City of New York) 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

Green v. City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 193, 721 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to said court’s prior order and directed plaintiff, inter alia, to answer questions during her deposition concerning her prior use of drugs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the excerpts from medical texts and journals submitted by defendants demonstrate a medical link between drug use and osteomyelitis, the condition for which plaintiff seeks to recover damages, the information sought by defendants as to plaintiff’s prior drug use is relevant upon the issue of whether plaintiffs condition is attributable to defendants-respondents’ medical malpractice, as alleged (see, Napoleoni v Union Hosp., [194]*194207 AD2d 660, 662). Accordingly, since parties are entitled to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]), the motion court properly exercised its broad discretion with respect to the conduct of discovery (see, Kamhi v Dependable Delivery Serv., 234 AD2d 34) by directing plaintiff to respond at her deposition to inquiries as to her prior drug use. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to said court’s prior order and directed plaintiff, inter alia, to answer questions during her deposition concerning her prior use of drugs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the excerpts from medical texts and journals submitted by defendants demonstrate a medical link between drug use and osteomyelitis, the condition for which plaintiff seeks to recover damages, the information sought by defendants as to plaintiff’s prior drug use is relevant upon the issue of whether plaintiffs condition is attributable to defendants-respondents’ medical malpractice, as alleged (see, Napoleoni v Union Hosp., [194]*194207 AD2d 660, 662). Accordingly, since parties are entitled to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]), the motion court properly exercised its broad discretion with respect to the conduct of discovery (see, Kamhi v Dependable Delivery Serv., 234 AD2d 34) by directing plaintiff to respond at her deposition to inquiries as to her prior drug use. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 193, 721 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack