Caceres v Motor Veh. Accident Indem. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Caceres v Motor Veh. Accident Indem. Corp. 2020 NY Slip Op 34034(U) December 7, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 506150/19 Judge: Lawrence S. Knipel Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 At an IAS Term, Part 57 of the Supren1e Courf of the State of New York, held in and for the Couhty of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 7th day of Decemtjer, 2020. PRES ENT: HON. LAWRENCE KNIPEL, Justice. --- ----- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- ---X JOSE CACERES, Plaintiff, - against - Index No.: 506150/19 MOTOR VEffiCLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc. Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed_ _ __ 30-36 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ __ 38-39 Upon the foregoing papers in this personal injury action, defendant Motor Vehic"te Accident Inde1nnification Corporation (defendant) 1noves (in motion sequence [n1ot. seci.J two) for an order, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), granting it leave to renew this court's July 30, 2020 order, which denied its motion to strike plaintiffs note of issue. 1 of 6 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 Background On August 4, 2017, plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident while he was riding a bicycle, and subsequently, in 2019, conunenced suit. On May 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a note of issue (NOi). Defendant moved on May 18, 20 J9, for an order striking plaintiffs NOi on the ground that plaintiff failed to respond :to defendant's October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery & Inspection. On July 30, 2020, this court denied defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs NOL Defendant now seeks leave to renew or reargue that order, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e). Defendant's Arguments Defendant argues that its 1notion to renew should be granted because deferise counsel mistakenly included the incorrect discovery request as exhibit "A" to its movihg papers in support of its underlying motion to strike plaintiffs NOi. Defense counsel asserts that she inadvertently placed a previous Supplemental Notice for Discovery'& Inspection dated June 17, 2019 as exhibit "A'', but the body of her motion referenced the correct discovery request, the October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery. The October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery & Inspection seeks authorizations to obtain worl<ers' compensation records and plaintiff's social security application. Plaintiff testified that a week after the subject automobile accident he injured his left calve cutting tile at work. Plaintiff is also alleged to have applied for social security a in onth and half prior to his deposition concerning his shoulders, back and knees. Defendant received authorizations to obtain medical records from D1:s. Offenbacher and Quareshi. Defendant seeks the workers' compensation and socfal 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 security application as outstanding discovery. Defendant claims that it would be higlily prejudiced if it is not provided plaintiffs workers' compensation and social secur~ty applications, and that it needs those records to "co1nprehensively evaluate the claim." iln support of the motion, defendant submits, among other exhibits, its motion to stril<e plaintiff's NOi, plaintiff's opposition, the October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery and Inspection and a transcript of plaintiffs examination before trial. Plaintiff's Opposition Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that defendant is seeking to obtain additional discovery to which it is not entitled under any court order. Plaintiff also argues that tpe instant motion violates 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.2 l (d)1 of the Uniform Rules of Trial Coutts since the NOi was filed with the Kings County Clerk's office on May 15, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that motions filed pursuant to that rule should be granted conservatively and require both (1) unusual or unanticipated circumstances, and (2) substantial prejudice lo the moving party. Plaintiff relies on the proposition that "[t]he common thread in cases allowing further discovery [is] some occurrence after the filing of the note of issue that is not in the control of the party seeking further discovery, and Which cause[s] actual, rather than potential prejudice[,]" citing Audiovox Corp. v Benyamin! (265 AD2d 135, 139 [2000]). Further, plaintiff asserts that there is no "unusual or unexpected" circumstance Section 202.21 (d) provides that "where unusual or unanticipated circumstances develop subsequeht to the filing of the note of issue, which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substa11ti8.l prejlidice, the court, upon a motion suppo1ted by an affidavit, may grant permission to conduct such necessary [discovery] proceedings." 3 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 that prevented defendant from seeking these records ti1nely. Additionally, plaintiff argues that defendant's instant motion fails to meet the requirements for a motion to renew because it does not contain a reasonable justificati~n for defendant's failure to present such facts on the prior motion. Plaintiff characterizes the instant motion as a fishing expedition and asserts that "a motion for leave to renew 'is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence :in making their first factual presentation"' citing Renna v Gullo (19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d. 328, 329 (1996)]). Plaintiff notes that a motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior detennination (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to pre.sent sucl1 facts on the prior inotion" citihg Pacheco v. Halsted Communications, Ltd (144 A.D.3d 768, 769 [internal citations and quotations omitted]). Plaintiff argues that defendant has failed to demonstrate that the workers' co1npensation records and social security application are relevant or are calculated to lead to relevant information. reasonab~y Plaintiff recou11ts that the instant action is grounded in an auto1nobile accident and that plaintiffs injuries are limited to inte1nal derangement and tears in the right shoulder, left shoulder, cervical and lumbar spine, left knee, left elbow and left wrist Plaintiff asserts that the workers' compensation and social security records relate to a superficial laceration, or a "cut" to plaintiffs left cal*: which has no connection with the subject accident. Plaintiff also argues that defendant 4 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 did not provide a time fra1ne for the authorizations sought for the workers compensatfon records or the social security application. Discussio11 A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 to renew "must be (1) based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (Matter of Nelson v Allstate Ins. Co., 73 AD3d 929, 929 [2010]). The October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery is referenced m the body of defendant's original motion, although it was not attached as an exhibit. In support of defendant's instant motion to renew, it submits a copy of October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery that was inadvertently omitted from defendant's original motion. Def'endant's explanation for the prior omission is reasonable and the information contained in the October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery was not previously provided to the court. The contents of defendant's October 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery warrants renewal of this court's prior determination because it reflects that d'efendant sought authorizations for plaintiff's workers' compensation records and social security application, and a ti1ne ffa1ne for each request is provided. The time frame for the worlcers' compensation records are from the date of the workplace accident in 2017 to 2020, and plaintiff testified to only one workplace accident where he sought worker's compensation. The time frame for the social security application is from the time it was 5 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2020 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 506150/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2020 filed around 2019 to 2020. Additionally, the record demonstrates that defendant timely demanded the workers' compensation records and social security application approximately six days after plaintiffs October 24, 2019 examination before trial. Here, defendant offers a time frame for the workers' compensation and social security application authorizations and explains the relevancy of the documents sought. Defendant explains that the records sought may concern an area of the body that plaintiff claims to have injured in the subject accident. Thus, defendant has demonstrated that disclosure of the workers' compensation information and social security application are relevant to the subject accident, will lead to relevant information or that defendant will ~e prejudiced without disclosure of such information because it bears on the claims at issue. Defendant asserts that it would be prejudiced if it is not provided plaintiffs workers' compensation records and Social security applications because it requires such records to "comprehensively evaluate the claim." Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant's motion (in mot. seq. two) to renew defendant's i11otion to strike plaintiffs Note of Issue is granted and, upon renewal, defendant1s motion to strike plaintiffs NOi is only granted to the extent that plaintiff is directed to respond to defendant's September 30, 2019 Supplemental Notice for Discovery within 30 days after service of this order with notice of entry thereof. This constitutes the decision and order-of the court. 6 Justice Lawrence i<nipel 6 of 6

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.