From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bunkley v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 1997
237 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

March 17, 1997.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the Plaintiff's appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 21, 1996, which denied their motion, inter alia, for a protective order and, (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 4, 1996, as, upon, in effect, granting re-argument, adhered to the prior determination.

Before: Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 21, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 4, 1996, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 4, 1996, is reversed insofar as appealed from, the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is granted, and the order dated March 21, 1996, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the Plaintiff's are awarded one bill of costs.

The Plaintiff's moved, inter alia, for a protective order and to quash a subpoena for the deposition testimony of the Plaintiffs' infant daughter, a nonparty to the action. The court erred in denying this relief as the defendants failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 309 (a) with regard to the service of the subpoena. It is undisputed that the process server did not serve two copies of the subpoena, one on the infant and one on her parent ( see, Kolodzinski v Ferreiras, 168 AD2d 431). Even if service: of the subpoena was proper, the Plaintiff's were entitled to a protective order as the defendants failed to show that the information sought from the Plaintiffs' daughter could not be obtained from other sources ( see, Dioguardi v St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333; CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see also, Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031, 1032).

Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that special circumstances warranted disclosure from Paul Bunkley's treating physicians. The defendants' claim that the medical records provided by the treating physicians were insufficient to enable them to prepare for trial was unpersuasive ( see, King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 748; Dioguardi v St. John's Riverside Hosp., supra; Ferrer v Horvath, 143 AD2d 627). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order should have been granted.


Summaries of

Bunkley v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 1997
237 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Bunkley v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:PAUL BUNKLEY, JR., et al., Appellants, v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CORP., et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 17, 1997

Citations

237 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
656 N.Y.S.2d 882

Citing Cases

Vogel v. Benwil Industries, Inc.

The lift was available for inspection for a sufficient period of time before its loss or destruction, and the…

Murphy v. Macarthur Holding B. Inc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The appellants failed to establish that…