Meroney v. Louie

Opinion

Meroney v Louie

2026 NY Slip Op 04849

August 5, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Mercedes Meroney, respondent,

v

Danny P. Louie, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 5, 2026

2024-10614, (Index No. 523400/22)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Carl J. Landicino

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Morris Duffy Alonso Faley & Pitcoff, New York, NY (Iryna S. Krauchanka and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for appellant.

Subin Associates, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Paul H. Seidenstock], of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 24, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In August 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she alleged she sustained in May 2022 as a result of a motor vehicle collision between the vehicle she was operating and the defendant's vehicle.

In April 2024, after several attempts to resolve discovery issues, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for any records related to social security disability benefits the plaintiff allegedly received for her purported diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated May 29, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion to the extent of directing the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's demands. The plaintiff produced certain documents but objected to the defendant's demand for an authorization regarding the social security disability benefits.

In July 2024, the defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendant's cross-motion. The defendant appeals.

"Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (Aha [*2]Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 AD3d 1019, 1019 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Muhammad v Ramadan, 228 AD3d 675, 675). "Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court" (Morales v Zherka, 140 AD3d 836, 836-837; see Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 237 AD3d 1211, 1213).

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff (see Farrell v Keldiyarov, 234 AD3d 933, 935; Candela v Kantor, 154 AD3d 733, 734). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint (see Farrell v Keldiyarov, 234 AD3d at 935).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records. "A motion to compel responses to demands and interrogatories is properly denied where the demands and interrogatories seek information which is irrelevant, overly broad, or burdensome" (Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 189 AD3d 749, 750; see Ayres v Bloomberg, L.P., 235 AD3d 709, 713). Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the records sought were "material and necessary" ( CPLR 3101[a]; see Hamed v Alas Realty Corp., 209 AD3d 628, 629).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court