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.
Mercedes MERONEY, respondent, v. Danny P. LOUIE, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 24, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In August 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she alleged she sustained in May 2022 as a result of a motor vehicle collision between the vehicle she was operating and the defendant's vehicle.
In April 2024, after several attempts to resolve discovery issues, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for any records related to social security disability benefits the plaintiff allegedly received for her purported diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated May 29, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion to the extent of directing the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's demands. The plaintiff produced certain documents but objected to the defendant's demand for an authorization regarding the social security disability benefits.
In July 2024, the defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendant's cross-motion. The defendant appeals.
“Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (Aha Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1019, 1019, 973 N.Y.S.2d 791 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Muhammad v. Ramadan, 228 A.D.3d 675, 675, 212 N.Y.S.3d 435). “Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court” (Morales v. Zherka, 140 A.D.3d 836, 836–837, 35 N.Y.S.3d 121; see Ortega v. New York City Tr. Auth., 237 A.D.3d 1211, 1213, 234 N.Y.S.3d 212).
Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff (see Farrell v. Keldiyarov, 234 A.D.3d 933, 935, 227 N.Y.S.3d 182; Candela v. Kantor, 154 A.D.3d 733, 734, 64 N.Y.S.3d 36). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint (see Farrell v. Keldiyarov, 234 A.D.3d at 935, 227 N.Y.S.3d 182).
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization for the release of her social security disability benefits records. “A motion to compel responses to demands and interrogatories is properly denied where the demands and interrogatories seek information which is irrelevant, overly broad, or burdensome” (Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 189 A.D.3d 749, 750, 137 N.Y.S.3d 120; see Ayres v. Bloomberg, L.P., 235 A.D.3d 709, 713, 228 N.Y.S.3d 581). Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the records sought were “material and necessary” ( CPLR 3101[a]; see Hamed v. Alas Realty Corp., 209 A.D.3d 628, 629, 175 N.Y.S.3d 557).
DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2024–10614
Decided: August 05, 2026
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)