Opinion
# 2016-050-057 Claim No. 120966 Motion No. M-88640
09-22-2016
NORA YANEZ, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALEJANDRO YANEZ, AND NORA YANEZ, INDIVIDUALLY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Pegalis & Erickson, LLC By: Gerhardt M. Nielsen, Esq. For Nonparty Movants: Fumuso, Kelly, Swart, Farrell, Polin & Christesen, LLP By: Suzanne Lavoie, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ellen Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
In this medical malpractice action, nonparties moved to quash subpoenas and notices of depositions and demands for documents and for a protective order as to such discovery. The Court grants movant's motion.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-050-057 |
| Claimant(s): | NORA YANEZ, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALEJANDRO YANEZ, AND NORA YANEZ, INDIVIDUALLY |
| Claimant short name: | YANEZ |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120966 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88640 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
| Claimant's attorney: | Pegalis & Erickson, LLC By: Gerhardt M. Nielsen, Esq. For Nonparty Movants: Fumuso, Kelly, Swart, Farrell, Polin & Christesen, LLP By: Suzanne Lavoie, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ellen Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 22, 2016 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In an action for damages for medical malpractice and related relief, nonparties (Alexander Dagum, M.D., Stony Brook Surgical Associates University Faculty Practice Corporation, Vincent Yang, M.D. and Stony Brook University Physicians University Faculty Practice Corporation ) move for an order quashing subpoenas and notices of depositions and demands for documents and things and granting a protective order as to such discovery. The discovery in question was sought by the claimants herein. The defendant herein joins in the movants' application and adopts and incorporates movants' arguments. The claimants oppose the motion.
As movants contend, the subpoenas and notices by which the claimants sought the discovery which is challenged herein by movants lacked notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required rendering them facially deficient and invalid and unenforceable (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]); De Stafano v MT Health Clubs, Inc., 220 AD2d 331 [1 Dept 1995]; Rickicki v Border Chem., 195 AD2d 986 [4 Dept 1993]; see also Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014]). Accordingly, this motion is granted, the subpeonas issued to Dr. Vincent Yang and Dr. Alexander Dagum as well as the notices of depositions and demands for documents and information all are stricken and movants are granted a protective order as to such subpoenas, notices and demands. However, this determination is without prejudice to claimants pursuit of any nonparty disclosure upon proper papers following the determination of the pending appeals in a related action brought in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, under index number 061090/2013.
September 22, 2016
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the nonparty motion to quash subpoenas and other related relief: 1. Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support with Exhibits. 2. Affirmation in Response. 3. Affirmation in Opposition. 4. Reply Affirmation.