MOUNT SINAI HEALTH PARTNERS IPA LLC v. HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK (2026)

This is an action for nonpayment filed by Mount Sinai Health Partners, a not-for-profit heath care system, against EmblemHealth a nonprofit health insurance company. Mount Sinai alleges that it contracted with Emblem Health to provide services. The contract purportedly specifies how much Mount Sinai will be paid for certain services and provides timeframes for payment. The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of contract and a cause of action for violation of New York Insurance Law § 3224-A (NYSCEF doc. no. 14).

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Commercial Division the parties have jointly filed discovery correspondence identifying disputes regarding document production.

Defendants submit a rule 14 application seeking a stay of discovery. According to defendants, a stay of this action would prevent unnecessary waste and the expenditure of resources. Defendants argue that they should not be compelled to produce discovery for thousands of "unidentified claims" involving multiple contract provisions, and submit that plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a brief stay given the parties current engagement in an alternative dispute resolution process, and their involvement in contract extension negotiations.

Plaintiff does not consent to a stay. Plaintiff refutes defendants' arguments and submits that no unusual or compelling circumstances exist to warrant a stay. Defendants answered the complaint, moved to dismiss, and entered a consent preliminary conference order. According to plaintiff, discovery should proceed as scheduled.

Courts may grant a stay of proceedings upon such terms as may be just (CPLR § 2201). When deciding whether to issue a stay, under section 2201, courts consider "issues of comity, orderly procedure, and judicial economy" (Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211 [1st Dept 2003]; OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v Colgate-Palmolive Co., 96 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2012][[a] court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the duplication of effort and waste judicial resources]).

Here, the court does not find that compelling circumstances exist to warrant the imposition of a stay. A court entertaining an application for a stay is "duty-bound to consider the relative hardships that would result from granting (or denying) a stay" (Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436, 443, n.4 [1990], citing David D. Siegel, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B,. CPLR C5519:4, at 188). Over one year has elapsed since the filing of the complaint in this action, and no document discovery has been exchanged. It does not appear, given the status of discovery, that judicial economy or orderly procedure would be furthered by formally staying the proceedings. Any further stay of this proceeding would inordinately delay resolution of this case. Nevertheless, the court is amenable to granting an extension of the discovery schedule to allow for the production of relevant documents and information.

The trial court has broad power to supervise disclosure (Daniels v City of New York, 291 AD2d 260, 260 [1st Dept 2002]). Generally speaking, and as applicable to discovery in every litigation, CPLR 3101 (a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action."

It is clear to this court, by the parties' submissions, that neither party has adequately conferred on or responded to the outstanding discovery demands. Both parties are accordingly directed to comply with outstanding demands by providing responsive documents and information.

Defendants' objections to the pleadings and allegations that plaintiff failed to provide particularities regarding the claims are preserved in their motion to dismiss. Defendants are admittedly in possession of the claim "spreadsheet," and it is this court's view that defendants have sufficient knowledge of the claims to begin document production. Plaintiff is admittedly prepared to make sufficient disclosure subject to an updated discovery schedule. The parties have not adequately set forth any reason or justification for why document production has not already begun or should otherwise be delayed further.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants' Rule 14 submission seeking a stay of this action is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the remainder of the parties' request to compel disclosure is resolved in accordance with the following discovery schedule:

1. Document production remains ongoing. The time to serve discovery demands shall be extended to November 20, 2026.

2. The parties shall meet, confer, and prepare document disclosures to be exchanged no later than February 19, 2027.

3. Party and nonparty depositions shall be completed no later than April 9, 2027.

4. Expert initial disclosures shall be served by April 16, 2027.

5. Expert rebuttal reports shall be exchanged by May 14, 2027.

6. End date for all disclosure: May 21, 2027.

7. Note of issue deadline: May 28, 2027.

8. Next Compliance Conference: March 4, 2027 at 10:00 a.m.

DATE November 6, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.

Robert R. Reed, J.