M.P. v Davidson 2025 NY Slip Op 31884(U) May 27, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507266/2020 Judge: Sabrina B. Kraus Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS PART CVA 1 /57 Justice -----------X INDEX NO. 507266/2020
M.P. AND J.P., MOTION DATE 5/27/25
Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
DANIEL DAVIDSON DECISION + ORDER ON Defendant. MOTION
-------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 56 - 64 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs commenced this action under the Child Victims Act ("CV A") seeking damages
for alleged sexual abuse they suffered as minor children at the hands of a family member. Plaintiffs
had commenced an action for such relief prior to the enactment of the CVA, which was dismissed
based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
ALLEGED FACTS
Plaintiffs make the following allegations.
Defendant is the cousin of Plaintiffs' mother. Plaintiffs and their mother are members of
the Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York. As a result, they are and sheltered from
the outside world. As a result of their close relationship, Plaintiffs' mother looked up to Defendant
like an older brother and trusted him.
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 1 of 5
[* 1] 1 of 5 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
At the time of the actions complained of, Defendant would come to Plaintiffs' mother and
tell her that he was in school obtaining a degree and would need to borrow her children for a study
that he had to perform that was necessary for his classes. Plaintiffs' mother agreed to allow
Defendant to take out her children so that he could conduct his study. To Plaintiffs' mother's
knowledge, Defendant was taking her sons out to eat and then back to his apartment in Brooklyn,
New York, so that he could use them for his school study, and then bringing them back to
Plaintiffs' apartment in Brooklyn.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs' mother, what Defendant was doing was sexually abusing
Plaintiffs repeatedly for months, and then threatening them not to tell anybody what happened. At
the time, Plaintiffs were approximately 6 and 11 years old.
The family confronted Defendant, who admitted to the abuse, went into treatment, and
agreed to pay $300,000.00 in damages, but never did.
To date none of the parties have been deposed, and Defendant has submitted no sworn
statement or verified pleading in this action. Defendant has submitted an answer verified by
counsel with ands/.
In his answer, Defendant avers that he lacks sufficient information and knowledge to state
whether he is the cousin of Plaintiffs' mother, and whether Plaintiffs are members of the Hasidic
Jewish Community in Brooklyn. Defendant further lacks sufficient information and knowledge
as to whether he told Plaintiffs' mother he needed the children for a study related to his course
work. Defendant does however deny that he sexually abused Plaintiffs.
ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT
Plaintiffs move to compel the production of alleged psychiatric records for treatment that
Defendant allegedly received after he confessed to his sexual abuse of the children.
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 2 of 5
[* 2] 2 of 5 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
In support of this request, Plaintiffs attach an affidavit from the prior dismissed action of
Shlomo Nahmias. Mr. Nahmias' sworn statement alleges the following:
I am a relative of both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances herein. In or about 2000/2001, our family discovered that Defendant had sexually molested the Plaintiffs (who at the time were minors). When I confronted the Defendant about this, he confessed to me that he had sexually molested the Plaintiffs.
Our family discussed what should be done. Many members of our family wanted to have the Defendant arrested and placed in jail. Some of the senior members of our family, however, wanted to keep the matter within the family and have the Defendant get treatment to see if he could be cured. The Defendant readily agreed to go into treatment rather than getting arrested. Our family worked out an arrangement with Ohel Children's Home and Family Services, a Jewish organization that specialized in issues of child abuse (including sexual abuse), to treat the Defendant. At the Defendant's request, I was appointed as a family "liaison" to monitor the Defendant's progress and treatment at Ohel.
In that regard, I would speak with the individual treating Defendant several times a month. During the course of these conversations, the treating individual would relay to me the Defendant's progress and treatment. The treating individual would also relay to me conversations with the Defendant from the Defendant's treatment sessions. Additionally, I would periodically be sent documentation from Ohel/the treating individual via mail regarding the Defendant's treatment and progress. Defendant's treatment at Ohel lasted for several years.
(NYSCEF Doc# 53).
Plaintiffs moved to compel the disclosure of the records in the prior action. The Court held
that the dates of treatment and the fact of treatment were discoverable but found that the affidavit
was too vague to determine whether a waiver of Defendant's medical privilege had occurred.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are now collaterally estopped from seeking the records,
and that the records are privileged.
DISCUSSION
CPLR 3101 mandates full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the
prosecution or defense of an action" (Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 156 AD3d 1167, 1168
[2017]). The terms material and necessary are liberally interpreted to require disclosure of any 507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 3 of 5
3 of 5 [* 3] [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
facts bearing on the issues raised in the case and which will assist preparation for trial. (Galasso
v Cobleskill Stone Prods., Inc., 169 AD3d 1344, 134 [2019]).
Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion regarding disclosure and generally its
determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (Gold v Mountain Lake Pub.
Telecom., 124 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2015]).
The party opposing the discovery request bears the burden of showing the requested
items are exempt or immune from disclosure (see NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People
Care Inc., 155 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2017]).
It is well settled that " ... once a patient puts the information into the hands of a third party
who is completely unconnected to his or her treatment and who is not subject to any privilege, it
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
M.P. v Davidson 2025 NY Slip Op 31884(U) May 27, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507266/2020 Judge: Sabrina B. Kraus Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS PART CVA 1 /57 Justice -----------X INDEX NO. 507266/2020
M.P. AND J.P., MOTION DATE 5/27/25
Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
DANIEL DAVIDSON DECISION + ORDER ON Defendant. MOTION
-------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 56 - 64 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs commenced this action under the Child Victims Act ("CV A") seeking damages
for alleged sexual abuse they suffered as minor children at the hands of a family member. Plaintiffs
had commenced an action for such relief prior to the enactment of the CVA, which was dismissed
based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
ALLEGED FACTS
Plaintiffs make the following allegations.
Defendant is the cousin of Plaintiffs' mother. Plaintiffs and their mother are members of
the Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York. As a result, they are and sheltered from
the outside world. As a result of their close relationship, Plaintiffs' mother looked up to Defendant
like an older brother and trusted him.
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 1 of 5
[* 1] 1 of 5 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
At the time of the actions complained of, Defendant would come to Plaintiffs' mother and
tell her that he was in school obtaining a degree and would need to borrow her children for a study
that he had to perform that was necessary for his classes. Plaintiffs' mother agreed to allow
Defendant to take out her children so that he could conduct his study. To Plaintiffs' mother's
knowledge, Defendant was taking her sons out to eat and then back to his apartment in Brooklyn,
New York, so that he could use them for his school study, and then bringing them back to
Plaintiffs' apartment in Brooklyn.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs' mother, what Defendant was doing was sexually abusing
Plaintiffs repeatedly for months, and then threatening them not to tell anybody what happened. At
the time, Plaintiffs were approximately 6 and 11 years old.
The family confronted Defendant, who admitted to the abuse, went into treatment, and
agreed to pay $300,000.00 in damages, but never did.
To date none of the parties have been deposed, and Defendant has submitted no sworn
statement or verified pleading in this action. Defendant has submitted an answer verified by
counsel with ands/.
In his answer, Defendant avers that he lacks sufficient information and knowledge to state
whether he is the cousin of Plaintiffs' mother, and whether Plaintiffs are members of the Hasidic
Jewish Community in Brooklyn. Defendant further lacks sufficient information and knowledge
as to whether he told Plaintiffs' mother he needed the children for a study related to his course
work. Defendant does however deny that he sexually abused Plaintiffs.
ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT
Plaintiffs move to compel the production of alleged psychiatric records for treatment that
Defendant allegedly received after he confessed to his sexual abuse of the children.
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 2 of 5
[* 2] 2 of 5 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
In support of this request, Plaintiffs attach an affidavit from the prior dismissed action of
Shlomo Nahmias. Mr. Nahmias' sworn statement alleges the following:
I am a relative of both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances herein. In or about 2000/2001, our family discovered that Defendant had sexually molested the Plaintiffs (who at the time were minors). When I confronted the Defendant about this, he confessed to me that he had sexually molested the Plaintiffs.
Our family discussed what should be done. Many members of our family wanted to have the Defendant arrested and placed in jail. Some of the senior members of our family, however, wanted to keep the matter within the family and have the Defendant get treatment to see if he could be cured. The Defendant readily agreed to go into treatment rather than getting arrested. Our family worked out an arrangement with Ohel Children's Home and Family Services, a Jewish organization that specialized in issues of child abuse (including sexual abuse), to treat the Defendant. At the Defendant's request, I was appointed as a family "liaison" to monitor the Defendant's progress and treatment at Ohel.
In that regard, I would speak with the individual treating Defendant several times a month. During the course of these conversations, the treating individual would relay to me the Defendant's progress and treatment. The treating individual would also relay to me conversations with the Defendant from the Defendant's treatment sessions. Additionally, I would periodically be sent documentation from Ohel/the treating individual via mail regarding the Defendant's treatment and progress. Defendant's treatment at Ohel lasted for several years.
(NYSCEF Doc# 53).
Plaintiffs moved to compel the disclosure of the records in the prior action. The Court held
that the dates of treatment and the fact of treatment were discoverable but found that the affidavit
was too vague to determine whether a waiver of Defendant's medical privilege had occurred.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are now collaterally estopped from seeking the records,
and that the records are privileged.
DISCUSSION
CPLR 3101 mandates full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the
prosecution or defense of an action" (Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 156 AD3d 1167, 1168
[2017]). The terms material and necessary are liberally interpreted to require disclosure of any 507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 3 of 5
3 of 5 [* 3] [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
facts bearing on the issues raised in the case and which will assist preparation for trial. (Galasso
v Cobleskill Stone Prods., Inc., 169 AD3d 1344, 134 [2019]).
Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion regarding disclosure and generally its
determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (Gold v Mountain Lake Pub.
Telecom., 124 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2015]).
The party opposing the discovery request bears the burden of showing the requested
items are exempt or immune from disclosure (see NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People
Care Inc., 155 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2017]).
It is well settled that " ... once a patient puts the information into the hands of a third party
who is completely unconnected to his or her treatment and who is not subject to any privilege, it
can no longer be considered a confidence and the privilege must be deemed to have been waived
as to that information." Farrow v. Allen, 194 A.D.2d 40, 44 (1993).
Thus in the context of CVA actions courts have consistently ordered that the treatment
files of Priests who were sent by the Church for treatment of pedophilia and related disorders,
when those files were shared with the Church, had waived any privilege to disclosure of said
files and were directed to turn them over in discovery. See eg Harmon v. Diocese ofAlbany, 204
A.D.3d 1270, 1273 (2022)(privilege with respect to the psychologist's report waived by
consenting to its release to the Bishop).
The Court does not find that collateral estoppel precludes it from ordering the records
disclosed. The prior Court never made a final determination on whether there had been a waiver
or not but held it could not tell from the short affidavit submitted whether there had been a waiver.
Indeed, given the conspicuous absence of an affidavit by Defendant attesting to any facts
there is simply not enough information in the motion papers to make such a determination. For
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 4 of 5
4 of 5 [* 4] [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/28/2025 11:54 AM] INDEX NO. 507226/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025
example, was Defendant treated by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or simply an
unlicensed counselor of the agency? Are the records are related to Defendant's alleged abuse of
Plaintiffs? Defendant in his unverified pleading denies the abuse, but submits no rebuttal to the
sworn statement that Defendant confessed to the abuse submitted in support of the motion. Was
there a written waiver allowing the Ohel providers to disclose the information to third parties?
Does Ohel even have any records pertaining to Defendant (Ohel was not served with the
underlying motion papers).
For all of the above reasons, the Court grants the motion to the extent of setting the matter
down for a hearing. Plaintiffs are given leave to subpoena both Ohel and Shlomo Nahmias to
provide testimony and produce relevant documentary evidence for the hearing. The subpoena to
Ohel should direct that Ohel produce any relevant documentation to the Court in advance of the
hearing for in camera review.
The hearing will also provide Defendant with an opportunity to make a case that a privilege
applies preventing such disclosure.
WHEREFOR it is hereby:
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent of setting the matter down for a hearing
on July 8th , 2025, at 10:00 am; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs have leave to subpoena the records from Ohel to the Court for
in camera review in advance of the hearing. This constitutes the decisio
5/27/25 DATE HON.
~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITIO
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
507226/2020 MP and JP V DAVIDSON MOTION NO.002 Page 5 of 5
5 of 5 [* 5]