Valuecare Pharm. Inc v. MVAIC

71 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50429(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2021
Docket570140/20
StatusUnpublished

This text of 71 Misc. 3d 136(A) (Valuecare Pharm. Inc v. MVAIC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Valuecare Pharm. Inc v. MVAIC, 71 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50429(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Valuecare Pharm. Inc v MVAIC (2021 NY Slip Op 50429(U)) [*1]

Valuecare Pharm. Inc v MVAIC
2021 NY Slip Op 50429(U) [71 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on May 14, 2021
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on May 14, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Higgitt, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570140/20

Valuecare Pharmacy Inc, a/a/o Sharon Hall, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant, as limited by its briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2019, which granted, in part, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.

Per Curiam.

Order (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2019, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Where a party fails to timely object to discovery demands within the 20-day period prescribed by CPLR article 31 (see CPLR 3122[a]; 3133[a]), appellate review is limited to determining whether the requested material is privileged under CPLR 3101 or the demand is palpably improper (see Khatskevich v Victor, 184 AD3d 504 [2020]; Jefferson v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1215 [2009]). Here, defendant did not timely object to plaintiff's discovery demands, including the interrogatories and notice for discovery and inspection, and, in fact, ignored them until plaintiff moved to compel compliance several months later. Since defendant did not argue below that the discovery requested was privileged or that the requests were palpably improper, we have no cause to disturb Civil Court's grant of plaintiff's motion to compel (see Precision Chiropractic, PC v MVAIC, 67 Misc 3d 126[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50359[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 14, 2021

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

Related

People v. May
2020 NY Slip Op 3477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Jefferson v. State
60 A.D.3d 1215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50429(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valuecare-pharm-inc-v-mvaic-nyappterm-2021.