Opinion
570064/06.
Decided August 2, 2006.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), dated April 4, 2005, which denied its cross motion to compel discovery and granted plaintiff's motion for a protective order.
Order (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), dated April 4, 2005, modified to direct plaintiff to fully respond to item 10 of defendant's demand for discovery and inspection and to comply with defendant's amended notice of examination before trial, and as modified, affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., GANGEL-JACOB, SCHOENFELD, JJ
Item 10 of defendant's demand for discovery and inspection, which calls for information pertaining to the employment status of the treating health provider, is relevant to the issue of whether the medical services were performed by an independent contractor ( see 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a]). Plaintiff only submitted a partial response to item 10 of defendant's demand and is accordingly directed to fully comply therewith. Plaintiff is also directed to comply with the defendant's amended notice of examination before trial, requesting the depositions of Dr. Dipak Nandi, plaintiff's president, and of Nan Ni Gilbert, Lic. Ac., the treating provider, as their testimony bears directly upon the foregoing defense.
Plaintiff's motion for a protective order with regard to defendant's remaining discovery demands was properly granted even if the motion was not timely made, as the disclosure sought was palpably improper because it was duplicative ( see Matter of Williamson, 261 AD2d 147), unduly burdensome ( see Albert v. Time Warner Cable, 255 AD2d 248), irrelevant ( Duhe v. Midence, 1 AD3d 279), and pertained to defenses not at issue in this case. Finally, while an insurer may delay payment of a claim to investigate whether a professional corporation was fraudulently incorporated, defendant has failed to meet the threshold requirement of "good cause" (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313), and thus is not entitled to disclosure pertaining to such defense.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.