Leach v Shapiro

[*1] Leach v Shapiro 2010 NY Slip Op 50245(U) [26 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on February 19, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 19, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, JJ
570617/09.

Patrick J. Leach, Plaintiff-

against

Lauren Shapiro, Defendant-Appellant, -and- Cambridge Realty, LLC, Defendant, Cambridge Realty, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord, Patrick J. Leach and Pansey Lawrence, Respondents-Tenants.

Defendant Lauren Shapiro appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered July 22, 2009, which (1) granted plaintiff's motion seeking relief under CPLR 3124 to the extent of issuing a conditional order of preclusion, and denied that branch of plaintiff's motion seeking to vacate an order affording defendant poor person relief, and (2) denied defendant-appellant's cross motion seeking, among other things, sanctions and, in effect, reargument of a prior order.

Per Curiam.

Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered July 22, 2009, to the extent appealable, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from those portions of the same order which (1) denied that branch of plaintiff Leach's motion seeking to vacate a prior order affording defendant Shapiro poor person relief, and (2) denied that branch of Shapiro's cross motion which, in effect, sought reargument of a prior order, dismissed (see CPLR5511; Freeman v Prince Leasing Corp., 49 AD3d 455 [2008]), without costs.

Defendant Shapiro, who alleged in her second counterclaim that she suffered "emotional harm" as a result of plaintiff's actions, affirmatively placed her mental condition in controversy (see Syron v Paolelli, 238 AD2d 710 [1997]; cf. Brown v Telerep, Inc., 263 AD2d 378 [1999]), [*2]which entitled plaintiff to disclosure of Shapiro's psychological treatment records (see Evans v Club Mediteranee, SA, 184 AD2d 277 [1992]; St. Claire v Cattani, 128 AD2d 766 [1987]; see also Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287 [1969]). Because the prior orders of Supreme Court did not address plaintiff's request for disclosure of those records on the merits, we reject Shapiro's argument that Civil Court was barred under the doctrine of law of the case from requiring her to disclose them (see Baldassano v Bank of New York, 199 AD2d 184 [1993]).

We have considered Shapiro's remaining arguments to the extent they are reviewable and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 19, 2010