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.
Alexis Llorente, etc., et al., appellants, v City of New York, et al., respondents.
Argued-November 15, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated September 10, 2009, which denied their motion to reject a Referee's report (Florio, R.), dated July 16, 2009, and, thereupon, confirmed the report, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 17, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and Administration for Children's Services, and the separate motion of the defendant Little Flower Children's Services, for a protective order.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Records kept pursuant to Social Services Law § 372 are confidential and subject to the provisions of CPLR article 31 (see Social Services Law § 372[3]; Wheeler v Commissioner of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 233 A.D.2d 4, 12-13). CPLR 3101(a) requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101[a] ). However, “[i]t may be that in a particular case [the] burden should require [the party seeking disclosure] to show that disclosure would not be detrimental to the best interests of the children affected” (Sam v. Sanders, 55 N.Y.2d 1008, 1010).
Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in confirming the Referee's report on the issue of disclosure (see Di Mascio v. General Elec. Co., 307 A.D.2d 600, 601; see generally Matter of JK & E Partnership v Chase Manhattan Bank, 276 A.D.2d 554, 555), and properly granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and Administration for Children's Services, and the separate motion of the defendant Little Flower Children's Services, for a protective order (see Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 745; Baez v. Sugrue, 300 A.D.2d 519, 521; Sam v. Sanders, 80 A.D.2d 758, affd 55 N.Y.2d 1008).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2009-09856 2009-09858 (Index No. 24122 /03)
Decided: December 21, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)