Vazquez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vazquez v. New York City Housing Authority

79 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 127

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 623 (Vazquez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Vazquez v. New York City Housing Authority, 79 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered June 12, 2009, which denied defendant’s motion to compel disclosure and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to compel the disclosure of plaintiffs siblings’ medical and academic records since defendant “fail[ed] to offer any expert evidence establishing a particularized need for inquiry into such matters not placed at [624]*624issue by the complaint” (Mendez v Equities By Marcy, 24 AD3d 138 [2005]). Nothing more than speculation supports defendant’s assertion that the mental condition of the siblings has any bearing on plaintiff’s condition, particularly since plaintiff’s claim is that the exposure to lead exacerbated his pervasive developmental disorder (FDD), not that it actually caused the FDD. Defendant submitted an affidavit by an expert who stated that the requested records would assist him in addressing plaintiff’s condition, but never addressed the affidavit by plaintiffs expert, who rebutted defendant’s expert’s affidavit in detail and stated that plaintiffs medical and academic records from before his alleged exposure to lead were “more than adequate” for the purpose of drawing diagnostic and prognostic conclusions concerning plaintiff’s condition after the alleged lead paint exposure. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered June 12, 2009, which denied defendant’s motion to compel disclosure and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to compel the disclosure of plaintiffs siblings’ medical and academic records since defendant “fail[ed] to offer any expert evidence establishing a particularized need for inquiry into such matters not placed at [624]*624issue by the complaint” (Mendez v Equities By Marcy, 24 AD3d 138 [2005]). Nothing more than speculation supports defendant’s assertion that the mental condition of the siblings has any bearing on plaintiff’s condition, particularly since plaintiff’s claim is that the exposure to lead exacerbated his pervasive developmental disorder (FDD), not that it actually caused the FDD. Defendant submitted an affidavit by an expert who stated that the requested records would assist him in addressing plaintiff’s condition, but never addressed the affidavit by plaintiffs expert, who rebutted defendant’s expert’s affidavit in detail and stated that plaintiffs medical and academic records from before his alleged exposure to lead were “more than adequate” for the purpose of drawing diagnostic and prognostic conclusions concerning plaintiff’s condition after the alleged lead paint exposure. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack