Cristiano v. York Hunter Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 October 2012
• Citation: 99 A.D.3d 751,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06774,951 N.Y.S.2d 883
• Parties: Robert CRISTIANO, respondent, v. YORK HUNTER SERVICES, INC., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 751

951 N.Y.S.2d 883

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06774

Robert CRISTIANO, respondent,

v.YORK HUNTER SERVICES, INC., appellant.

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

Oct. 10, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREHavkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Christopher M. Gibbons of counsel), for appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its notices of appeal and brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 6, 2010, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated January 7, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, in effect, its opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 6, 2010, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2011; and it is further,

ORDERED that order dated January 7, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to renew, in effect, its opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center is granted, upon renewal, so much of the order dated August 6, 2010, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was, in effect, for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center pertaining to the plaintiff's fractured rib injury is vacated, and that branch of the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to renew, in effect, its opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center. While the Supreme Court correctly, in effect, granted that branch of the cross motion initially—since the defendant, which...