May 17, 2017

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 03979)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-v-rlc-med-p-c-2017-ny-slip-op-03979/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: May 17, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 03979 · 150 AD3d 1034
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C., 150 AD3d 1034 (2d Dept 2017)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer failed to show that deposing the provider's estate administrator would yield relevant evidence or information bearing on its claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, directing the administrator to appear for a deposition in the insurer's declaratory judgment action concerning no-fault claims for services purportedly rendered by the deceased provider. CPLR 3101 (a) (1) requires liberal disclosure of material and necessary information, but discovery is not unlimited. The insurer made no showing that the proposed deposition would disclose relevant evidence or was reasonably calculated to lead to information bearing on its claims.

Reported in New York Official Reports at State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 03979)

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C.

2017 NY Slip Op 03979 [150 AD3d 1034]

May 17, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, June 28, 2017

[*1]

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
RLC Medical, P.C., et al., Appellants.

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Frank D’Esposito of counsel), for appellants.

McDonnell Adels & Klestzick, PLLC, Garden City, NY (Stuart Flamen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jules L. Spodek, J.), dated June 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, directed that the administrator of the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins appear for a deposition.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from so much of the order as directed that the administrator of the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins appear for a deposition, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.

The plaintiff insurance company commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins, seeking a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no obligation to pay no-fault claims for medical services purportedly rendered by Collins. In an order dated June 2, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that the administrator of Collins’s estate (hereinafter the administrator) appear for a deposition. The defendants appeal from that portion of the order.

CPLR 3101 (a) (1) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The terms “material and necessary” in this statute “must ‘be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ” (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2016]). “At the same time, a party is ‘not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure’ ” (D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d at 1196, quoting Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]). “ ’It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims’ ” (D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d at 1196, quoting Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420, [*2]421 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff made no showing that conducting the deposition of the administrator will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims (see Black v Budget Rent A Car Corp., 224 AD2d 350 [1996]; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d at 421).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly directed that the administrator appear for a deposition. Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Similar decisions

RLC Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51962(U))The insurer established that discovery concerning the provider's alleged fraudulent incorporation was needed to oppose summary judgment.
Flatlands Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50582(U))A provider's failure to object timely to discovery demands does not require disclosure of privileged or palpably improper matters.
Tsatskis v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51891(U))An insurer may depose a provider on a preserved medical-necessity defense without first showing inadequate written discovery responses.
62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch. (2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U))The insurer's specific licensing concerns established special circumstances warranting disclosure of the provider's tax records.
Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52185(U))Discovery supporting a precluded medical-necessity defense is palpably improper even without a timely objection.