From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 2, 2020
179 A.D.3d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

10697N 10697NA Index 300960/15

01-02-2020

Bradford ROM, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. EUROSTRUCT, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Oresky & Associates, PLLC, Bronx (John J. Nonnenmacher of counsel), for appellant. Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for respondents.


Oresky & Associates, PLLC, Bronx (John J. Nonnenmacher of counsel), for appellant.

Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for respondents.

Richter, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Gesmer, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2019, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion seeking authorizations for plaintiff's public health insurance records from 2004 to the present, and stayed his deposition as to injuries contained in the fourth, fifth, and sixth supplemental bills of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 4, 2019, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the June 21, 2019 order. The court providently exercised its discretion in compelling additional discovery. Defendants established substantial prejudice where unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue (see Bermel v. Dagostino, 50 A.D.3d 303, 855 N.Y.S.2d 73 [1st Dept. 2008] ; Esteva v. Catsimatidis, 4 A.D.3d 210, 772 N.Y.S.2d 267 [1st Dept. 2004] ). Plaintiff raised specific and significant injuries to his lumbar spine for the first time after the note of issue had been filed, warranting a further deposition and medical examination (see Jenkins v. 312 W. 121st St., 30 A.D.2d 937, 293 N.Y.S.2d 875 [1st Dept. 1968] ). Furthermore, plaintiff's claims of aggravation and exacerbation of a preexisting, latent, and asymptomatic degenerative condition entitled defendants to authorizations unrestricted by date (see McGlone v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 90 A.D.3d 479, 480, 934 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Rega v. Avon Prods., Inc., 49 A.D.3d 329, 330, 854 N.Y.S.2d 688 [1st Dept. 2008] ).


Summaries of

Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 2, 2020
179 A.D.3d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Bradford Rom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eurostruct, Inc., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 2, 2020

Citations

179 A.D.3d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
179 A.D.3d 418
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 54

Citing Cases

Murray v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd.

Moreover, "[p]reexisting unrelated conditions . . . become material and necessary, and, thus, discoverable…

Mitchell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

In resolving this discovery dispute, the court must balance the competing interests presented and "the need…