Alvin N. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Aliyah N.)

• Decision Date: 18 April 2019
• Docket Number: 9025
• Citation: 171 A.D.3d 563,96 N.Y.S.3d 858 (Mem)
• Parties: IN RE ALIYAH N., a Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Alvin N., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner, Leila S., Respondent–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

171 A.D.3d 563
96 N.Y.S.3d 858 (Mem)

IN RE ALIYAH N., a Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

Alvin N., Respondent–Appellant,
v.
Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner,

Leila S., Respondent–Respondent.

9025

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

Entered: April 18, 2019

The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Miriam Schachter of counsel), for appellant.

Larry S. Bachner, New York, for respondent.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child.

Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Michael R. Milsap, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2018, which denied respondent father's motion to compel petitioner Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) medical expert witness to appear for a deposition, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

The father met his burden of demonstrating special circumstances warranting the grant of his motion to subpoena and depose ACS's expert medical witness, given ACS's failure to oppose the application and its concession that it does not know whether the doctor's testimony at the fact finding hearing will support its allegations of child abuse (see CPLR 3101[d][1][iii] ;

96 N.Y.S.3d 859

Falcone v. Karagiannis, 93 A.D.3d 632, 634, 939 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2d Dept. 2012] ).

The excerpts of the child's medical records provided to the father did not indicate the substance of the expert's expected fact finding testimony, including her expert opinion as to the extent of the child's injuries, her future prognosis, or the facts supporting her conclusion that the child's injuries were non-accidental (see Melendez v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. , 277 A.D.2d 64, 717 N.Y.S.2d 518 [1st Dept. 2000] ; Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc. , 198 A.D.2d 58, 59, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148 [1st Dept. 1993] ).