M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc.

• Citation: 959 N.Y.S.2d 280,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00888,103 A.D.3d 676
• Parties: M.C. (Anonymous), respondent, v. SYLVIA MARSH EQUITIES, INC., appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 February 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 676
959 N.Y.S.2d 280
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00888

M.C. (Anonymous), respondent,
v.
SYLVIA MARSH EQUITIES, INC., appellant.

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

Feb. 13, 2013.

[959 N.Y.S.2d 281]

Russo & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Francesca A. Sabbatino and Fern F. Flomenhaft of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Wildstein, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[959 N.Y.S.2d 282]

[103 A.D.3d 676]In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated September 28, 2011, as denied those branches of its motion which were to compel the plaintiff to appear for a supplemental deposition on the issue of her participation in the witness protection program and to respond to its notice to produce dated January 6, 2011.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying[103 A.D.3d 677]that branch of the defendant's motion which was to compel the plaintiff to appear for a supplemental deposition on the issue of her participation in the witness protection program, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion to the extent of directing the plaintiff to appear for a supplemental deposition concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding her entry into the witness protection program, (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the defendant's motion which were to compel the plaintiff to respond to its notice to produce dated January 6, 2011, with respect to demands numbered 1, 10, 13 through 18, 21, and 22, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motion, and (3) by adding thereto a provision directing that the transcript of the supplemental deposition and any information disclosed at the supplemental deposition, and any records and information disclosed through the plaintiff's responses to the notice to produce dated January 6, 2011, are not to be disclosed to anyone other than counsel of record and, in the event that these documents and this information are included as part of the Supreme Court's file, the papers containing these documents and this information are to be filed under seal; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

On May 5, 2008, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when the bathroom ceiling in her apartment collapsed. The premises on which her apartment was located were owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. According to her bills of particulars, the plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back, and right knee, which required surgery and caused a loss of enjoyment of life.

During a deposition of the plaintiff, she refused to answer certain questions on the ground that she was a participant in the federal witness protection program. Following that deposition, the defendant served the plaintiff with a notice to produce...