CHERYL VOSS AND GREGORY VOSS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS v. JEFFREY DUCHMANN DOING BUSINESS AS TRADE WINDS TENT PARTY RENTAL DEFENDANT APPELLANT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

CHERYL VOSS AND GREGORY VOSS, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. JEFFREY DUCHMANN, DOING BUSINESS AS TRADE WINDS TENT & PARTY RENTAL, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

CA 14–02124

Decided: June 19, 2015

PRESENT:  CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (MICELLE M. RAGUSA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (BRIAN R. HOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  “It is well settled that a court is vested with broad discretion to control discovery and that the court's determination of discovery issues should be disturbed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion” (Roswell Park Cancer Inst. Corp. v Sodexo Am., LLC, 68 AD3d 1720, 1721).   We perceive no such abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's denial of that part of the motion of defendant seeking to compel plaintiffs to provide authorizations permitting disclosure of the billing records of plaintiffs' private health care insurers.   Plaintiffs previously had provided authorizations permitting defendant to obtain the billing records of the health care providers of Cheryl Voss, the injured plaintiff, and defendant “failed to show the relevancy of the demanded documents” to its defense (Jordan v. Blue Circle Atl., 296 A.D.2d 752, 753).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court