Strujan v State Farm Ins.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Strujan v State Farm Ins. 2012 NY Slip Op 31799(U) July 3, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 400526/2011 Judge: Judith J. Gische Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. __ ANNED ON 711012012 [* 1] k ...... - 5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORE M3W YORK COUNTY HQN.JUDITH J. GISCHE PRESENT: PART Jlmth .. I _- Index Number : 400528/2011 . - STRUJAN, ELENA vs. STATE FARM INSURANCES SEQUENCE NUMBER : 002 COMPEL DISCLOSURE - The Idlowlng pprm, numkrod 1 to -, Notlo of MotlonlOrdsr to Show C a w , Anrwrlng Affldmvltr - ExhLtb wsm mad an t motlon tolFw h -AWIduvttr -b l b t t r Replying AfHdavt Upon the foregdng papen, It Ir ordered that t b motlon b h I We). IW b I Ho(@. 1 0 [* 2] J SUPREME COURT THE STATE NEW OF OF YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 10 X --_l__-----rl_l---l-l--_l_l-_l----.l---------- Elena Strujan, t DECISION/ ORDER Index No.: Seq. No.: Plaintiff (s), -agehnaf- 400526/2011 002,003 PRESENT: Hon, &dit h J, Gi& JSC State Farm Insurances, John/Jane Doe, Defendant (s). _ -I - _ __ - c _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - I- - - I _ - _ * - - - - -- L - - - X Recitation, as required by CPLR 5 2219 [a] o the papers considered in the review of f this (these) motion(s): Papers Numbered Motioo Sea 18 w # 002 n Notice of Motion. EJ affd., exhibks................................................................................... 1 BLB affirm., exhibits......................................................................................................... 2 Plaiintiff s Reply and Complaint ,exhibits...................................................................... .3 Plaintiffs Reply Affidavit at Defendant s Objections to Compel . with Discovery, exhibit................................................................... Fmm.I~bbL..E.+.d Wotim Saswnw ## 003 Notice of Motion, EJ affd., exhibits BLB affirm. In Opp .................................................................................. NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK S OFFICE Upon the foregoing papers, the decision and order of the court is as follows: Plaintiff, pro se, brought this action against defendant alleging that it improperly failed to pay out on claims she made against an insurance policy it issued to her. By decision and order dated October 4,2011, this court dismissed all claims made by plaintiff, except those relating to breach of contract. Discovery on the remaining claim proceeded. Plaintiff now brings two motions. Motion Sequence # 002 seeks to compel defendant to answer her demand for a bill of particulars. Motion Sequence # 003 seeks Page 1 of 4 [* 3] an order of protection. The motions are consolidated for determination in this single decision and order. DISCUSSION Qiscovery Plaintiff claims that she served a Demand for a Bill of Particulars ( demand ), dated December 22,201I that defendant never responded to and that she needs the , information requested to prosecute her case. In fact, the demand was responded to on January 26, 201 1. Defendant s response raised legitimate objectlons to the demand, including that it was unauthorized because plaintlff had also served requests for answerS to interrogatories and the demand improperly sought the production of documents. Notwithstanding the properly interposed objections, defendant, nevertheless, produced the requested docurnentation, except that which it otherwise claimed was privileged. The requested documentation for which no privilege was asserted, and a privilege log, identifying the documents withheld on a claim of privilege, were produced to plaintiff under two cover letters, respectively dated February 3 and 6, 2012. In her reply, plaintiff does not dispute that she received the documentation. Instead, she now claims that the documents she receivd are false. Notwithstanding her claims, it I not s apparent from the face of the copies of the documents that she provides an this motion that they are false. Plaintiff may r e s e w and attempt to prove this issue at trial, if the documents are othenrvise admissible in evidence. The motion to compel defendant to respond to the demand for a bill of particulars is, therefore, denied. Page 2 of 4 [* 4] c I Motion for an Order of Protection While at first blush it seems as though plaintiff is seeking further relief regardlng discovery, in fact she is really seeking a criminal order of protection. She claims that defendant continues to harass [her], to stole (sic)evidences, [and] delete files from computer. This is, in part, a rehash of claims she made in her earlier motion (Seq # 001) that were rejected by the court in its October 4, 2011 decision and order bcause plaintiff had failed to provide any proof of her sweeping accusations. No additional proof is provided in this motion of that alleged behavior. There are new claims made by plaintiff in this motion, including that defendant stole evidence and deleted her computer files. There I no evidence supporting these s bold and serious accusations other than plaintiffs statement, that files she personally controlled are now missing. She also admits that in a landlord tenant matter, with other attorneys, she also had issues with missing files. There is no evidence tying defendant to her missing documents other than personal suspicion. There is no legal basis for issuing an order of protection. These parties are not related, so that there can be no family offenses that support the relief sQught. DRL $240. Nor is there a pending criminal proceeding that would warrant protecting plaintiff as the victim of a crime. CPL fi530.13. Also lacking i any indicia of criminal behavior s that would warrant such drastic relief. Plaintiffs bare-boned allegations are insufflcient proof. The motion for an Order of Protection is, therefore, denied as well. Conclusion In accordance herewith, it is herqby Page 3 o 4 f . [* 5] c I . ORDERED that plaintiffs motion (Sequence # 002) for an order compelling discovery is denied, and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs motion (Sequence # 003)for and Order of Protection Is denied, and it i further s ORDERED that this matter i mrtiflad for trial, plaintiff is directed to file a Note of s issue on or before August 3, 2012 and it is further ORDERED that any requested relief not otherwise expressly granted herein is denied and that this constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: New York, New York July 3, 2012 SO ORDERED: FILED JUL 10 2012 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Page 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.