Premo v. Rosa
| Decision Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Parties | Cynthia PREMO et al., Respondents, v. Donna ROSA et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01536
93 A.D.3d 919
940 N.Y.S.2d 199
Cynthia PREMO et al., Respondents,
v.
Donna ROSA et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 1, 2012.
[940 N.Y.S.2d 200]
Frank Losurdo, Ithaca, for appellants.
Finkelstein & Partners, L.L.P., Newburgh (James W. Shuttleworth of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., SPAIN, KAVANAGH, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
EGAN JR., J.
[93 A.D.3d 919] Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Sherman, J.), entered November 17, 2010 in Tompkins County, which, among other things, granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 1, 2011, which denied defendants' motion to renew.
Plaintiff Cynthia Premo and her husband, derivatively, commenced this action seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in January 2003 when the vehicle in which Premo was a passenger was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by defendant Donna Rosa and operated by defendant Carlos Garcia in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County. According[93 A.D.3d 920] to plaintiffs, Premo sustained various injuries including, insofar as is relevant here, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Following joinder of issue and discovery, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs to disclose, among other things, additional information and medical authorizations relative to treatment that Premo previously received for carpal tunnel syndrome—specifically, surgery that Premo underwent on her right wrist in or about 1986. Ultimately, in July 2010, Supreme Court issued an amended order directing plaintiffs to provide authorizations for all of Premo's medical records maintained by her treating physician and Cayuga Medical Center—the facility where Premo believed her prior surgery took place—during a specified time period and granted defendants a conditional order of preclusion. Although the additional medical authorizations were provided, the documents were tendered outside the 30–day compliance window established by Supreme Court and, as a result, the court precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of Premo's claimed bilateral carpal tunnel injuries at trial.
Plaintiffs thereafter moved to renew and/or reargue defendants' motion to compel and, by order entered November 17, 2010, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion and vacated the order of preclusion. Following additional discovery, defendants moved to renew and vacate Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene Major Holdings, LLC v. Trailside at Hunter, LLC
...138 A.D.3d at 1273, 29 N.Y.S.3d 685 ). In either case, the motion is addressed to the court's sound discretion (see e.g. Premo v. Rosa, 93 A.D.3d 919, 920, 940 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2012] ; Matter of Ellsworth v. Town of Malta, 16 A.D.3d 948, 949, 792 N.Y.S.2d 227 [2005] ). Supreme Court granted th......
-
Hill v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp.
...compliance with discovery demands (see Hameroff & Sons, LLC v. Plank, LLC, 108 A.D.3d 908, 909 [3d Dep't 2013]; Premo v. Rosa, 93 A.D.3d 919, 920 [3d Dep't 2012]); Cochran v. Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, 90 A.D.3d 1227, 1227 [3d Dep't 2011]; Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v. Cannon Design, Inc.,......
-
Calabrese Bakeries, Inc. v. Rockland Bakery, Inc.
...power in controlling discovery and disclosure, and only a clear abuse of discretion will prompt appellate action” ( Premo v. Rosa, 93 A.D.3d 919, 920, 940 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). We discern no abuse of that discretion in this matter. Nor can w......
-
Hurrell-Harring v. State
...such facts earlier ( seeCPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; Webber v. Scarano–Osika, 94 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 943 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2012]; Premo v. Rosa, 93 A.D.3d 919, 920, 940 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2012] ). “While we generally decline to disturb the decision to grant or deny a motion to renew, we will do so if there ......