Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KENNETH M. SCHLAU, JR., PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, BUFFALO URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, WESTERN NEW YORK ARENA, LLC, HSBC ARENA, ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. (ADT), DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he touched the handle of an electronically secured door at HSBC Arena and sustained an electric shock. These consolidated appeals concern discovery disputes that have arisen between plaintiff and certain defendants.
In appeal No. 1, defendants City of Buffalo, Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency, Western New York Arena, LLC, HSBC Arena, and ADT Security Services, Inc. (ADT) (collectively, Arena defendants) appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate their CPLR 3216(b)(3) notice, permitted discovery to continue beyond the 90–day period set forth in the notice, and denied their cross motion seeking a scheduling order. “Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion in supervising disclosure” (Blumenthal v. Tops Friendly Mkts., 182 A.D.2d 1105, 1106), and we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to vacate the CPLR 3216(b)(3) notice. Discovery was not complete, and the Arena defendants continued to seek disclosure after serving the notice, which “was sufficient reason in and of itself to” vacate the notice (Gonzalez v. Deutsch Co., 193 A.D.2d 449, 449; see Little v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 231 A.D.2d 496, 498). In addition, the court acted within its discretion in scheduling its calendar and setting timetables for discovery when it denied the Arena defendants' cross motion for a scheduling order (see Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 528, appeal dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 897). The court also properly exercised its discretion in awarding costs on the motion to plaintiff (see Greenspan v Rockefeller Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 268 A.D.2d 236, 237; American Auto. Plan v. Corcoran, 166 A.D.2d 215, 215).
Contrary to the contention of the Arena defendants in appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court properly denied their motion seeking to limit further disclosure or, alternatively, the appointment of a referee to supervise further disclosure (see Kogan v. Royal Indem. Co., 179 A.D.2d 399, 399). We note that the court was without authority to appoint as a referee the private attorney proposed by the Arena defendants absent plaintiff's consent (see Ploski v. Riverwood Owners Corp., 255 A.D.2d 24, 28).
We agree with the Arena defendants and defendant U. & S. Services, Inc. (U. & S.) in appeal No. 3, however, that the court erred in denying in their entirety their respective motions seeking complete disclosure of plaintiff's unredacted medical records. Plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively placing his medical and psychological condition in controversy, and he has disclosed all of his postaccident medical records (see Goetchius v. Spavento, 84 AD3d 1712, 1713). With respect to plaintiff's preaccident medical records, the waiver of the physician-patient privilege extends to the same body parts or conditions that are at issue in the action (see Geraci v National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 255 A.D.2d 945, 946), but not to “ ‘information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments' “ (Carter v. Fantauzzo, 256 A.D.2d 1189, 1190). Upon our review of the disputed medical records, we conclude that the court properly denied the motions insofar as they sought to compel production of plaintiff's hospital and pediatric medical records dated on or before March 19, 1997, inasmuch as those records, in the context of the action herein, are not material and necessary to the defense (see Chervin v. Macura, 28 AD3d 600, 601), nor are they reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence (see DeStrange v. Lind, 277 A.D.2d 344, 345). We further conclude, however, that given plaintiff's broad allegations of injury, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life, the court abused its discretion in denying the motions of the Arena defendants and U. & S. with respect to plaintiff's hospital and pediatric medical records dated on or after March 20, 1997 (see Boyea v. Benz, 96 AD3d 1558, 1560). We therefore modify the order in appeal No. 3 accordingly.
We dismiss the appeals from the order in appeal No. 4. The motions of the Arena defendants and U. & S., although denominated motions seeking leave to renew and to reargue, sought leave to reargue only, and the court's order denying those motions is not appealable (see D & A Constr., Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 105 AD3d 464, 465; Coccia v. Liotti, 70 AD3d 747, 759, lv dismissed 15 NY3d 767).
We also dismiss the appeals from the order in appeal No. 5. The Arena defendants challenge only that part of the order reserving decision on plaintiff's request for sanctions, and that part of the order is not appealable (see Matter of Trader v. State of New York, 277 A.D.2d 978, 978). U. & S. challenges the order only insofar as it directs U. & S. to submit an affirmation concerning the medical records in its possession. U. & S. has complied with that directive, thus rendering its appeal moot (see Lombardo v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 232 A.D.2d 459, 460).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–01595
Decided: February 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)