From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mikinberg v. Bronsther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1998
256 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 21, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to quash the subpoena served upon Dr. Clifford Butterman and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in quashing the subpoena directed to Dr. Clifford Butterman. While Dr. Butterman continued referring the infant plaintiff to other doctors for treatment of the condition underlying this medical malpractice action through 1994, his records fail to make any reference to that condition after October 29, 1992. Furthermore, although the plaintiffs originally also sued Dr. Butterman and even attached an affidavit of merit to the complaint naming him as a defendant, they have now discontinued the action against him without explanation therefor. This sufficiently shows the existence of special circumstances warranting the deposition of Dr. Butterman as a nonparty witness ( see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; Heitzman v. Abrahamson, 97 A.D.2d 811; cf., Patterson v. St. Francis Ctr., 249 A.D.2d 457; Anderson v. Kamalian, 231 A.D.2d 659; Michalak v. Venticinque, 222 A.D.2d 1060; Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 A.D.2d 333).

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in quashing the subpoena directed to the infant plaintiff's treating dentist, Dr. Inna Royfe. There is no indication that she took any action concerning the infant plaintiff's facial cyst beyond her initial referral of the infant plaintiff to an oral surgeon on November 2, 1991. Moreover, in contrast to Dr. Butterman, she was not originally named as a defendant but then inexplicably dropped from the suit. Thus, the appellant has failed to show that he could not obtain the information he seeks from Dr. Royfe from other sources ( see, Patterson v. St. Francis Ctr., supra; Anderson v. Kamalian, supra; Michalak v. Venticinque, supra; Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., supra).

Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mikinberg v. Bronsther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1998
256 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Mikinberg v. Bronsther

Case Details

Full title:ELLA MIKINBERG et al., Respondents, v. BURTON BRONSTHER et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 416

Citing Cases

Kooper v. Kooper

Subsequent to the Fourth Department's decision in Catalano, the First Department cited Dioguardi with…

Tuebner v. Cardinal Health 414, Inc.

"10. Subsequent to Dioguardi, many of our cases involving nonparty discovery continued to hold that "special…