Summary
In Castagnazzi v. Schlecker, 159 A.D.2d 533, 552 N.Y.S.2d 398 (2d Dept. 1990) the court acknowledged the "broad discretion to set the terms and conditions of discovery".
Summary of this case from Greenberg v. SpitzerOpinion
March 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to provide to the plaintiffs a duplicate copy of any hospital records obtained as a result of the authorizations of the plaintiff Eleanor Castagnazzi (see, CPLR 3121 [a]; Tower v Chemical Bank, 140 A.D.2d 514, 516; Czekanski v Hanretta, 42 Misc.2d 115). The mere fact that the defendant made his demand for authorizations prior to any demand for a physical examination cannot excuse noncompliance with the statute (see, Tower v Chemical Bank, supra; Keays v Vanderheyden Hall, 43 Misc.2d 399). Moreover, in keeping with its broad discretion to set the terms and conditions of discovery (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 A.D.2d 914, 915), the Supreme Court fashioned an appropriate remedy by having the plaintiffs shoulder a reasonable cost of the duplication (see generally, Rosado v Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., 103 A.D.2d 395, 398; Close v Schaeffer, 116 Misc.2d 916). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.