Pernice v. Devora

238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 28, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 558 (Pernice v. Devora) 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
Pernice v. Devora, 238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Ralph Olsen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), dated November 4, 1996, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum.

[559]*559Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The purpose of a subpoena is to compel the production of specific documents that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a pending judicial proceeding (see, Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042). By the use of the subpoena duces tecum at issue, the plaintiff sought to obtain from Dr. Ralph Olsen, who conducted a medical examination of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants, essentially all of Dr. Olsen’s records, including records of the money Dr. Olsen received for medical examinations he performed on behalf of insurance companies. The plaintiff sought such information on the generalized claim that since the defendants’ examining physicians receive compensation, they are predisposed in their findings toward the defendants, and that because the defendants’ physicians have a tight appointment schedule, they would have minimal time to conduct thorough examinations. The plaintiff thus claimed the information requested would be used to impeach Dr. Olsen’s credibility. Since the plaintiff admittedly sought the requested records simply for the purpose of gaining information to impeach the general credibility of Dr. Olsen, the subpoena should have been quashed (see, People v Scott, 212 AD2d 477). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Loiselle v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
2020 NY Slip Op 06325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Morano v. Slattery Skanska, Inc.
18 Misc. 3d 464 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Baliva v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
286 A.D.2d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Prudential Securities Inc. v. Samansky
281 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Fazio v. Federal Express Corp.
272 A.D.2d 259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
K. S. v. Incorparated Village of Garden City
245 A.D.2d 265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pernice-v-devora-nyappdiv-1997.