Morales v. Sid Farber Enterprises, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. Sid Farber Enterprises, LLC

140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2015-05874

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 718 (Morales v. Sid Farber Enterprises, LLC) 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

Morales v. Sid Farber Enterprises, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated June 8, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide it with certain medical authorizations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from an incident which occurred on December 16, 2009, the defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to provide HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936)-compliant medical authorizations relating to treatment he received in relation to a prior motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 23, 2001. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant demonstrated unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting the limited discovery requested from the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Matter of Quadrozzi v Quadrozzi Concrete Corp., 50 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2008]; Scanga v Family Practice Assoc. of Rockland, P.C., 41 AD3d 576, 577 [2007]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793 [2006]), especially in light of the substantial prejudice to the defendant that would result without such discovery.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated June 8, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide it with certain medical authorizations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from an incident which occurred on December 16, 2009, the defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to provide HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936)-compliant medical authorizations relating to treatment he received in relation to a prior motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 23, 2001. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant demonstrated unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting the limited discovery requested from the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Matter of Quadrozzi v Quadrozzi Concrete Corp., 50 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2008]; Scanga v Family Practice Assoc. of Rockland, P.C., 41 AD3d 576, 577 [2007]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793 [2006]), especially in light of the substantial prejudice to the defendant that would result without such discovery.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-sid-farber-enterprises-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack