Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 26 April 2011
• Citation: 83 A.D.3d 998,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03545,922 N.Y.S.2d 470
• Parties: Rebecca GEFFNER, etc., appellant,v.MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

83 A.D.3d 998

922 N.Y.S.2d 470

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03545

Rebecca GEFFNER, etc., appellant,

v.MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, respondent, et al., defendants.

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

April 26, 2011.

Rebecca Geffner, Little Neck, N.Y., appellant pro se.Mulholland, Minion & Roe, Williston Park, N.Y. (Susan B. Boland of counsel), for respondent.DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

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 A.D.3d 1139, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426; JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton, 73 A.D.3d 1130, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603). 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 A.D.2d 395, 741 N.Y.S.2d 909; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 873, 429 N.Y.S.2d 33).

Here, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the plaintiff's 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 provide authorizations compliant with the Health...