Walter v Walch

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Walter v Walch 2012 NY Slip Op 33067(U) July 2, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 28382-2007 Judge: Paul J. Baisley 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. [* 1] SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK CALENDAR CONTROL PART - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT, HON. PAUL J. BAISLF:Y, JR., J.S.c. ----------------------------------------------------------------X JAM[L YN WALTER and JOHN WALTER, Plaintiffs, -against- INDEX NO.: 28382-2007 CALENDAR NO.: 200901583MV MOTION DATE: 6/25/2012 MOTION SEQ. NO.:003 MD INDEX NO.: 6[69-2008 CALENDAR NO.: 20090[474MV MOT[ON DATE: 6/6/20[2 MOTION SEQ. NO.: 004 MD ROBERT WALCH and DIANA WALCH, PLAINTIFFS' Defendants. Act;on -If. (Index # 28382-2007) [ ----------------------------------------------------------------X JOI-IN P. WALTER, as Parent and Natural Guardian of PAIGE GILDARD, an Infant Under the age of 18 years. Plaintiff, - againstROBERT WALCH and DIANA F. WALCH, ATTORNEY ACTION & SILBER, PLLC 419 Park Avenue South, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10016 # I: LINDENBAUM PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY ACTION # 2: SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110 Melville, New York 11747 DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS: BAXTER SMITH & SHAPIRO, P.C. 99 North Broadway Hicksville, NY 1180 I Defendants. Action # 2 (Index # 6169-2008) ----------------------------------------------------------------X UPOIl the ruIlOl":illg papcr~ IIlIlllon<:d I to 27 n::au (III Ih~sc illotiolls s~"killg an order cOI11i1cllilH!, di~covcrv ,met an ()["dn or s"::l'crallCC : NOlie,; of Ml1Iionf Ord<:r to Show Cause ami supporting papcrs---l:...1.l-. Notice of Cross Motion/OnJ.:r 10 SllOW Cause ilnd snpporling papers 1-1-19 : Answering AlTidavits and supporting papers 20-25 & 26-27 . Replying A ffidavits and supponing p,lpas _: Othcr_: (and after hearing counsel ill suppon and opposed to the motion) it is. ORDERED that this motion by defendants Robert Walch and Diana F. Walch (Walch) brought on by Order to Show Cause dated May 15,2012 seeking an order directing the plaintiff in Action # 2 (Index # 6169-2008) Paige Gildard (Gildard) to provide an authoriL'1tion permitting defendants access to Gildard's Facebook account and staying the trial of the action pending plaimirrs compliance is granted: and it is further ORDEREIl that within 20 days from the date of service ofa copy of this order. as directed below, plaintifTGildard shall deliver to counsel for the defendants a properly c:\ectlted consent and authorization as may be required by the operators of raccbook, permitting the defendants to galll access to the plaintiffs racebook records, including any records previously deleted or archived by [* 2] ORDI(RED lhat dcJ"endal1ls' counsel is d1n:cted to serve a copy o1'thls urdcr \lv'llh noticc 01' clltr).' upolleuullsel fur nil panics and non-p<1rly Facehook \vlthilltwenty days llfthe entry date oi'llll.'; urder by the SuJflllk County Clerk: ancl it 1S fun her OROERED that the relah:d l11ution by plaintiff,:> 111Action ill (tndc,; 112~:nK~-20(J7) .IaillilYIl Waller and Jphn \),/alh:r (\\'ilItCr) brought 011 by Order to Show Cmlse dated June 21. 2012 seekll1g dll urder severing ActiOn II I (Inde:" Ii 21rW2-20(7) ll'om Action i-! 2 (Index H () I 69-2()()S) illld. upon sUl'll scvcnl1lce. pcrmittlllg the tnal ul';\ction tI- I tu commcncc v'iithjury sclectilln on JLlly 9, 20121s gri\llll'd; and it 1S I'urther ORDERED thulthese actions ,He hereby severed and Actio]] if 2 (Index # 6169-200,s) IS stayed pending the cumple!lOll oftlle discovery relaled to the production ofplaintillCiildard's Facebook account records: and it is further ORDERED thatjUfY selection for Action if. I (Index 11 28382-2007) shall proceed on July 9, 2012, rhe panics arc directed to appear at CCP on July 9, 2012 at 9:30 a,m for the calendar call or the SS/SR calendarBoth actions lnvolve personal injuries suslmlled in a motor vehicle aeelclcnt wh1eh occurred on Octobcr 31. 2005 Plaintiff .lamilyn Walter was opcratll1g a motor \'ehick \I.,'hich was struck hy vehicle operated by deCendant Robert \Valch, rhe plaintiff's daughter, P,uge Gildnrd, wns a passen~cr In the Walters' vchlcle. By short form Order (Rebolini, l) dated Decemher 10.200;:; the defcndants WultC-rs' motion seeking an order consolidating both actions \vas granted to the extcnt then the actions wcrc.l0ll1cd By short form Order (Rebolll1i, J) dated September 20, 2010 the plaintilTs' (Walters') motion ill Action ill (Index ii 28382-2()()9) seeking an order granling partie\1 sUlllmary Judgment against the defendants 'vVlth respect to the Issue of liability was gr~llltcd 1\ note of on July 27, 2009. Cakndm Control 2012 having been ,1 Issue was filed in Action #] on July 31, 2009:. a note oClssue \vas filed in Actiol] il2 Court records Il1clleate that botb actions have appeared nurnerous times OJl the Pan calendar and both actions arc presently scheduled for jury selection on .luly (), previously adjourned on four separate dales since March 2, 2012. Dell:nd:lllls Walchs' lllotilll1 sec~s an order c()rnp ¢. JJillg the pbinlilT(iildard ~ in /\c(HlIlil:2 (Indn II ()169-2()()X) to provide autllOrl7mions to ])l'rl1lit the defendants to obtall1 Ciildard's private p()rti()n tlrtlle plalntil'l's social networking I·'acebook account inforl11<ltion. J)eJ(:nddnts clalillthat thc')" :\re entitlc:d to the records sillce they arc rnatcnal and relevant and will likely' provide adlllisslhk evidence to contradict the plaintilrs loss oCcn]oymellt ofliCc clallns. I)cf(:ndanlS contend th,lt (;ildw·d illk!:,'~S that slw lS in C{)nst~1I1tpuin ~l11dthat hl.-~rover,lil ljLlalily ofl1lL' and SCllse llrlvell-beillg hdS h ¢.Cil severely Impactcd dS d result o1'tilc lI1JlIrleS sust;lIlled in the accident. ' It IS the "kl;"'I1lLulls' pOSl!loll th~lt records suught <lrc disC\.\vcrabk based UPUIl the plaintitT's luss or enjuYl11ell( ol'lirc ebil1ls [* 3] In opposition to the dd\:l1dants Walchs' motion. plaintitTCiildard submits an <Juorney's affirmation and claims thaI tht' ddt..'l1dants· motion must be denied sincc the public prol!k SI;.'CtiOll of (iildard' s Fao:book account docs not provick any information which cOlllradiets hel" loss of l'njllyment nf lilt..'claims. The piaimlffasserls that her public profile page has ,1slllg!c photograph oC (iJldard smilmg and no olhlT lIl!'urmation. It IS tile pbilllilYs cOllt(:ntl()n thaI ,:1hS('111 some fm':lU<l1 Im:t!ic,llC on thc \vchsitc's public pagc \vhich raises an issl1l' cOlltl'i\t!ic1.ing UJld(]rd's lnss pl· eil.l0ynlclll ()l"liiC claims. no basis cxists tu pennit the delendants to obl~ljll access to Ciildard·s pnvnte Fact'ix)()k account Plaintiffs Walters' motion secks an order severing the actions claiming that they wll1 bc sewrdy prqlldiecd hy any fllrtl1l..'rdday in the damages' trial schcdllkJ for July 9. 2012. Plaintirfs cOll1ctld thai discuvery issucs must siill hI.: resolved in Action # 2 and that the issues conccrl1lng till' dam;lges sustained by J;}milyn Wnlters dilTcr from the in.iuries suswined by the plainlifTCiildard ill the companioll adi(ln. Plaintirfs also claim that they hav~ compensated a dodor to testify dunng the damages tl·ial and that they will be prejudiced iCthe trial is again adjourned. In opposItion the defendants subn1Jl an attorney's affirmatiun and claim th<11110basis exists 10 seyer the actions since coml11on I:'K:1Ual nd legal issues exist which warranl a single lria1. a Dcli:ndants also claim that the plaintiffs have I~liled to Jcmonstrate substantial prejudice irthe damages trial is adjourned for a minimal period of time to complete discovery, CPLR Section 3101(<1)(4) provides: Scopc nf disclosurc, (a) Cicncrally. There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and nel:essary in the prosecution or defense 01"an action. regardless of the burden of proof. by: (4) any olher person. upon notice stating the circumstances disclosure is sought or required. The Court nfi\ppculs 4-19 (1 %S) held: in Allcn I'. Cr()1j}cll-('ollier or reasons such P/lhlishing COllllhl/·I.\'" 21 NY2d 40:i. 288 NYS2d "The words "IlHlll'l"Ial (lnt! Ill'ccss(lry" "rc. in ()lll"view II) he intl:rprl'tcd lihcwlly \(l rl'qulrc disclosurc. upon requcst. 01"any (:'lets hearing 011the controvl.-Tsy which wilt assist preparation for trial hy sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test IS one of usefulness and reason (CPI.R SCl:lion 3101 (a)) ..and should be construed ... to permit discovery orll'stimony "which is sunJciently n:latcd tn issues in litig(llioI1 to makl.: the; ellim 10 Oblall1 it 1I1prep,lr~ltiull for lri;d rl'<IS()I1Uhic"(ID at '-to() citing J IYeins/cill-f.:ol"ll-Alillcl". Nc,w York Civil Pr,Ic11CC. par~L 31 () 1 7)). i'vlorcovcr plallltilTs who place their physil:<ll and mental cundilillll in COlltl"Owrsy Illa)" Ilot shIeld themsclves f"rom disclosure material which is necessary to the delL'llsc or Ihe aelillll (! 1(}l'I1i,~ ,. l['('sllllwl. 52 NY2d M15. --1-JCJ NYS2d 831 (19X 1 Discovery is generally pl'-l"milled with rcspcct tn materials that may he relevant to Iht' issue ol"damages and the extent ora plaintiJrs personalllljuries n. -3- [* 4] tnc!udmg <I plaintd'fs claim I()!"loss ofenjo)'n1<..'nt of life (Or/oJ/do I'. RichlJ/olld Precast Jllc.)3 !\Dld 53~. g(l! NYS2d 765 (2",1Dcpt.. 2008)). TIll' dcl~'ndants h,wc made a sufTicil.'nt showing that Ihe matenal sought from the private profile scction of (jildanr s Faccbook account is bOlh material and necessary 10 Ihe delL-IN.' of th ¢.. · action and/or could l.:ad to admissihl.: cvidt'nce relakd to plaimifr s Inss or cnjoym ¢.. ¢ of lill- claims. nt Accordi ngly the cklcndanls motion l'or an order compdllng the plaint! rr Gilliard 10 pl"llvide autl1nri/.:ltl(lIlS for the Facebllok account recll!"ds must be granted. CP! ,R S ¢.. ·l'1iUll 60J provides: St'Vt'rancc and sCIHlratc trials. In runh ¢.. ¢ rancc of convcnience or to avoid pn.:judice the court may ortkr a seVl.'ranee of claims. or may order a separate trial of any claims. or of ~lll)' st'parate issul.'. The court may order the trial of any claim or issue prior to the trial of the others. Thl.' decision 10 order Sl.'veranee is discretionary and should not be exercised unless till.' hlilure to sever will pIneL' some substantial right in.icopardy (Meczko11'ski 1'. FlY. lIowe// Co., !nc. 63 AO:1d g03. XiSONYS:!d 507 (2"d Dept., 2009); Pellegrino v. rVa/ka Theofre Inc.. ] 27 1\[)2d 574. 511 NYS2d '3T!. (2".1Dcpt , 19M7); /(arama S'ujJeI'mOrkel Inc, v. Frawley Plaza /Issocioles. 200 i\d2d 355. W6 NYS2d 177 (1" DepL 1094)). The record shows thaI the plainti Ffs' action has been repeatedly adjourned prevenlltlg the prompt proseclltion of the \rValters' damages only trial. Moreover givcn the fact that the damagl.'s sustained hy Jamdyn Walter in thl.' accidl.'nt must be thl.' subject or proof which is not rclatl.'d to tht' damagl.'s sustained by Gildard. a severancl.' to pre\'Cnt further dl'Jay on Actioll If I is warranted particularly sint:c discovl.'ry issues remain to hl.' resolved in the companion action. Plaintiffs· motion seeking all ortkr of severance pursuant to CPLR Section 603 must therefore be grante4. Dated .July 2, 2012 -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.