At page 998 Supervising discovery and scope of disclosure in litigation14 citing cases“a party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure, and the supervision of discovery is generally left to the trial court's broad discretion”
- ARK564 Doe v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 2025 NY Slip Op 30132(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2025).unpublishedCtr. , 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2d Dept 2011 ]).
- H.M. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 2024 NY Slip Op 32867(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998,998 [2d Dept 2011]).
- Levin v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 31226(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2d Dept 2011]; see Quinones v. 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750, 750 [2d Dept 2015]).
- Plana v. United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 2024 NY Slip Op 31117(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2d Dept 2011]; Quinones v. 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750, 750 [2d Dept 2015]).
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. RLC Med., P.C., 150 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]). “ ‘It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o…
- Aalco Transp. & Storage, Inc. v. DeGuara, 140 A.D.3d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]; see Quinones v 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750 [2015]; Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139 [2010]; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
- D'Alessandro v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]; see Quinones v 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750, 750 [2015]).
- Jordan v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 1084 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]; see Quinones v 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750 [2015]; Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139 [2010]; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
- JFK Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Millbrae Nat. Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]).
- Quinones v. 9 East 69th Street, LLC, 132 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]; see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139 [2010]; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531 [2007]).
Show 2 more citing cases
- Gutierrez v. Trillium USA, 111 A.D.3d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]).
- J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Herschmann, 2026 NY Slip Op 01041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
At page 999 provide authorizations compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d et seq.), although neither the plaintiff…1 citing case
- USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Calvin, 145 A.D.3d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedCtr., 83 AD3d 998, 999 [2011]; Shaw v RPA Assoc., LLC, 75 AD3d 634, 635-636 [2010]; Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918, 918-919 [2007]).
v.
Mercy Medical Center
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered October 13, 2009, which, in effect, denied her motion, among other things, to direct the defendant Mercy Medical Center to comply with certain demands for discovery and inspection, and, inter alia, directed her to provide authorizations compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d et seq.) to the defendant Mercy Medical Center.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure, and the supervision of discovery is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139 [2010]; JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v Town of Southampton, 73 AD3d 1130 [2010]). The trial court’s broad authority to supervise discovery includes the discretion to direct the priority in which the parties may use disclosure devices if it finds, under the particular circumstances, that the action will be expedited by the use of one device prior to another (see Edwards-Pitt v Doe, 294 AD2d 395 [2002]; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873 [1980]).
Here, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the plaintiffs motion to compel the defendant Mercy Medical Center (hereinafter the respondent) to comply with certain demands for discovery and inspection, and directed the parties to conduct depositions. We agree with the respondent that many of the plaintiff’s demands to which it objected were overly broad and unreasonable, and sought irrelevant material, and that therefore, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion was provident.
The Supreme Court did not improperly direct the plaintiff to[*999] provide authorizations compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d et seq.), although neither the plaintiff nor the respondent moved for such relief. A court may grant relief on a motion which was not specifically requested as long as it is not dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof supports it, and the court is satisfied that no one is prejudiced by it (see Shaw v RPA Assoc., LLC, 75 AD3d 634 [2010]; HCE Assoc. v 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 774 [1991]). This was a motion pertaining to disclosure, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by being required to supply the subject authorizations (see Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 65 AD3d 176, 183 [2009]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.