Opinion
6095 Index 306417/08
03-27-2018
Norma ANDRADE, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Agapito PEREZ, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
The Frankel Law Firm, New York (Reuven S. Frankel of counsel), for appellants. Natalie Gonzalez, P.C., Melville (Natalie Gonzalez of counsel), for respondents.
The Frankel Law Firm, New York (Reuven S. Frankel of counsel), for appellants.
Natalie Gonzalez, P.C., Melville (Natalie Gonzalez of counsel), for respondents.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2017, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate a sua sponte order directing them to provide certain disclosure to defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.The motion court should have granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate the sua sponte order directing them to produce disclosure to defendants, as defendants' answer had been stricken by prior order of the court. Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to any further discovery, including discovery in preparation for an inquest (see Servais v. Silk Nail Corp., 96 A.D.3d 546, 547, 946 N.Y.S.2d 568 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
To the extent the motion court ordered plaintiffs to provide disclosure already submitted to defendants' former counsel, a different result is not warranted. Assuming defendants are unable to access their case file due to a retaining lien, the court improperly facilitated a "work around" of such lien (see Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v. Rabinowich, 77 A.D.3d 532, 909 N.Y.S.2d 706 [1st Dept. 2010] ; Warsop v. Novik, 50 A.D.3d 608, 856 N.Y.S.2d 607 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see also Artim v. Artim, 109 A.D.2d 811, 812, 486 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2d Dept. 1985] ). If there is no retaining lien, defendants should seek an order to compel former counsel's production of the discovery.