September 10, 2008

Bronxborough Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28343)

Headnote

The relevant facts in the case of Bronxborough Medical, P.C. v Travelers Insurance Co. involved a provider who sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the insurance company. The issue at hand was that the provider wanted to serve a subpoena on the insurance company to produce an employee outside the City of New York, in which the lower court found that the provider did not offer a valid reason to permit service of the subpoena outside the city. The main issue decided by the court was whether the interests of justice would be served by allowing the provider to serve a subpoena outside the City of New York, and the court held that the provider's motion was properly denied because it failed to establish that the interests of justice would be served or set forth the location at which the subpoena was to be served. Additionally, the court noted that if the provider believed that the insurance company's response to its notice to admit was improper, its remedy lies in the procedure set forth in CPLR 3123 (c). The order was affirmed without costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bronxborough Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28343)

Bronxborough Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 28343 [21 Misc 3d 21]

Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication

AT2

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

As corrected through Wednesday, November 12, 2008

[*1]

Bronxborough Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Mohamad Nazir, Appellant,
v
Travelers Insurance Co., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, September 10, 2008

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Office of Alden Banniettis, Brooklyn (Jeff Henle of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Karen C. Dodson, Melville (Janine Gentile of counsel), for respondent.

{**21 Misc 3d at 472} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved, pursuant to CCA 1201, for leave to serve a subpoena on defendant outside the City of New York compelling the production of an employee of defendant to testify at the trial. The lower court found that plaintiff did not offer a valid reason to allow service of a subpoena outside the jurisdiction. Plaintiff appeals from the order denying its motion.

In an action pending in the Civil Court of the City of New York, a subpoena may not be served outside the City of New York and the adjoining counties unless the Civil Court, upon a motion establishing to the satisfaction of the court that the interests of justice would be served thereby, permits service of such a subpoena (see CCA 1201). Inasmuch as plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish that the interests of justice would be served by permitting plaintiff to serve, outside the City of New York and the adjoining counties, a subpoena which would require defendant’s employee to appear at trial, and, in addition, did not set forth the location at which plaintiff sought to serve the subpoena, plaintiff’s motion was properly denied.

To the extent that plaintiff argues that defendant’s response to its notice to admit was improper, the court below properly noted that plaintiff’s remedy lies in the procedure set forth in CPLR 3123 (c).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.