March 23, 2020

Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 50360(U))

Headnote

MVAIC's deficient discovery responses warranted an order compelling limited discovery concerning its defenses. A trial court has broad discretion to supervise discovery, and its determinations are not disturbed absent demonstrated abuse. The Appellate Term, First Department, found that the Civil Court properly exercised that discretion because MVAIC's responses to interrogatories and a notice for discovery and inspection were deficient. MVAIC's arguments that the demands were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and otherwise improper were raised for the first time on appeal, and review was declined. The order, insofar as appealed from, granting the provider's motion to compel was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 50360(U))

[*1]
Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC
2020 NY Slip Op 50360(U) [67 Misc 3d 126(A)]
Decided on March 23, 2020
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 23, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Edmead, Torres, JJ.
570726/19

Easy Care Acupuncture, PC a/a/o Sara Bohorquez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Bianka Perez, J.), entered February 21, 2019, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.

Per Curiam.

Order (Bianka Perez, J.), entered February 21, 2019, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs. A trial court is vested with broad discretion to supervise the discovery process, and its determinations in that respect will not be disturbed in the absence of demonstrated abuse (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]). Here, the trial court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in compelling defendant-insurer to comply with limited discovery with respect to its defenses, since defendant’s responses to the demand for interrogatories and notice for discovery and inspection were deficient.

Defendant’s arguments that the subject demands are overbroad, unduly burdensome and otherwise improper, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to review them (see 324 E. 9th St. Corp. v Acordia Northeast-N.Y., 29 AD3d 367 [2006]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 23, 2020