Opinion
2017–03826 Index No. 505476/16
11-14-2018
Abdulsalim Malikovic KAKHAROV, Appellant, v. Narda E. ARCHER, et al., respondents, et al., Defendant.
William Pager, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. White Werbel & Fino, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Matthew I. Toker of counsel), for respondents.
William Pager, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
White Werbel & Fino, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Matthew I. Toker of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated March 31, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he alleges he sustained when he was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision with another vehicle. The defendants Narda E. Archer and Lifespire, Inc., the driver and the owner of the other vehicle, respectively, sought discovery from the plaintiff, including authorizations for medical and other records. In a preliminary conference order, inter alia, the plaintiff was directed to provide those authorizations for the period three years prior to the accident through the present time.
The plaintiff moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3104(d) to vacate so much of the preliminary conference order as directed him to provide the authorizations. The Supreme Court denied the motion in an order dated March 31, 2017, and the plaintiff appeals.
"In order to comply with ‘the liberal discovery provisions of the CPLR,’ a party who affirmatively places his or her medical condition into issue ‘must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the release of pertinent medical records’ " ( M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc. , 103 A.D.3d 676, 679, 959 N.Y.S.2d 280, quoting DeLouise v. S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp. , 79 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 913 N.Y.S.2d 774 ). In addition, "the defense is entitled to review records showing ‘the nature and severity of the plaintiff's prior medical conditions [which] may have an impact upon the amount of damages, if any, recoverable for a claim of loss of enjoyment of life’ " ( M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc. , 103 A.D.3d at 679, 959 N.Y.S.2d 280, quoting Amoroso v. City of New York , 66 A.D.3d 618, 618, 887 N.Y.S.2d 163 ).
Here, the plaintiff affirmatively placed his medical condition in controversy through broad allegations in his bill of particulars (see O'Brien v. Village of Babylon , 153 A.D.3d 547, 548, 60 N.Y.S.3d 92 ; Greco v. Wellington Leasing L.P. , 144 A.D.3d 981, 982, 43 N.Y.S.3d 64 ; Montalto v. Heckler , 113 A.D.3d 741, 742, 978 N.Y.S.2d 891 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion.
DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.