From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Recine v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2017
156 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2016–00880 Index No. 702164/13

12-20-2017

Elizabeth RECINE, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, et al., defendants.

Lynch Lynch Held Rosenberg, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Arthur Lynch of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack and Eric Lee of counsel), for respondent.


Lynch Lynch Held Rosenberg, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Arthur Lynch of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack and Eric Lee of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered December 29, 2015, which denied her motion to compel the defendant City of New York to comply with her requests for discovery dated February 4, 2014, and February 12, 2015, respectively.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant City of New York to comply with her requests for discovery dated February 4, 2014, and February 12, 2015, respectively, is granted.

A defendant's failure to make a timely challenge to a plaintiff's document demand pursuant to CPLR 3122(a)(1) forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101 or requests that are palpably improper (see Giano v. Ioannou, 78 A.D.3d 768, 911 N.Y.S.2d 398 ; During v. City of New Rochelle, N.Y., 55 A.D.3d 533, 534, 865 N.Y.S.2d 279 ; Hunt v. Odd Job Trading, 44 A.D.3d 714, 716, 843 N.Y.S.2d 423 ). Here, the defendant City of New York did not object to the plaintiff's requests for discovery dated February 4, 2014, and February 12, 2015, respectively, within the required time period, and it failed to either asserted a valid privilege or establish that the demands were palpably improper.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to compel the City to comply with those requests for discovery.

BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Recine v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2017
156 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Recine v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth RECINE, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 20, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 8870
65 N.Y.S.3d 788

Citing Cases

Brito v. Gomez

She then continued to ignore the discovery notice until days before filing her opposition to defendants'…

Rockaway Med. & Diagnostic v. Chubb Ins. Co.

In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff objected to many of defendant's discovery demands. However,…