Opinion
2014-03-26
Gregory ADAMS, respondent, v. Vincent A. IMPERIAL, appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for appellant. Torgan, Cooper & Aaron, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Kenneth J. Gorman], of counsel), for respondent.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for appellant. Torgan, Cooper & Aaron, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Kenneth J. Gorman], of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated June 6, 2013, as upon, in effect, denying his motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue, determined that he was not entitled to certain discovery.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to further authorizations for the plaintiff's employment records (see Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430;Parise v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 36 A.D.3d 678, 829 N.Y.S.2d 559;Cable v. IBM Corp., 101 A.D.2d 799, 475 N.Y.S.2d 469; see also Romance v. Zavala, 98 A.D.3d 726, 950 N.Y.S.2d 390;Rochester Linoleum & Carpet Ctr., Inc. v. Cassin, 61 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 878 N.Y.S.2d 219). Similarly, it was a provident exercise of the court's discretion to deny the defendant access to the injured plaintiff's health insurance records (see Romance v. Zavala, 98 A.D.3d at 728, 950 N.Y.S.2d 390). DICKERSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.