Makris v. Westchester County — Dec. 2002 (Full Case)

 

Anna Makris, etc., appellant,

v.

Westchester County, et al., respondents. (Index No. 246/97)

2000-06613, 2000-09815

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Decided on December 9, 2002

Submitted – October 30, 2002

 

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN
G. CRANE, JJ.

 

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

 

Rubert & Gross, P.C. (Soledad Rubert, Arthur Sisser, and

 

Richard Gross of counsel), for

 

appellant.

 

Kanterman & Taub, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Karen L. Wagner

 

of counsel), for respondents

 

Westchester County, Westchester County

 

Medical Center, and Samuel Kasoff.**2

(Cite as: 2002 WL 31761404 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 09176, **2 )

 

Rende, Ryan & Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Wayne M.

 

Rubin of counsel), for respondents

 

Bruce Roseman, Robert Wolff,

 

Ronald Jacobson, and Martin

 

Kutscher.

 

PER CURIAM OPINION

 

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by
her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.),
entered June 19, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendants Westchester County, Westchester
County Medical Center, and Samuel Kasoff for a protective order with respect to her combined
disclosure demands, granted the cross motion of those defendants for a protective order with
respect to stated items in her supplemental disclosure demands, and denied those branches of her
separate cross motions which were to direct those defendants to respond to her combined
disclosure demands and supplemental disclosure demands, and (2) from an order of the same
court, entered September 27, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Westchester
County, Westchester County Medical Center, and Samuel Kasoff for a protective order with
respect to stated items in her revised combined disclosure demands.

 

ORDERED that the order entered June 19, 2000, is modified, on the law and in the exercise of
discretion, by (1) deleting the provisions thereof granting those branches of the motion and the
cross motion of the defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center, and
Samuel Kasoff which were for a protective order with respect to items 1, 6, and 32 of the
documents section of the combined disclosure demands dated February 14, 2000, and denying
those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motions with respect to those items, and substituting
therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion and the separate cross motion with
respect to those items, and granting those branches of the plaintiff’s separate cross motions to the
extent of directing those defendants to provide any statements made or given by an individual
defendant at or to any meeting held pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3) regarding the subject
matter of this action, (2) deleting the provisions thereof granting those branches of the motion
and the cross motion of the defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center,
and Samuel Kasoff which were for a protective order with respect to items 31, 47, 48, 49, 50,
51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the documents section of the combined disclosure demands dated
February 14, 2000, and items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the supplemental disclosure demands dated
March 24, 2000, and denying those branches of the plaintiff’s separate cross motions with respect
to those items, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion and the
cross motion, and granting those branches of the plaintiff’s separate cross motions with respect
to those items, and (3) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the
defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center, and Samuel Kasoff which
was for a protective order with respect to item 20 of the documents section of the combined
disclosure demands dated February 14, 2000, and substituting therefor a provision denying that
branch of the motion to the extent of directing those defendants to provide the medical staff rules
of the Westchester County Medical Center in effect in October 1987 concerning the
qualifications required to perform shunt revisions and spinal taps; as so modified, the order
entered June 19, 2000, is affirmed insofaras appealed from; without costs or disbursements; and
it is further,

 

ORDERED that the order entered September 27, 2000, is modified, on the law and in the
exercise of discretion, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion
which was for a protective order with respect to item 26(i) of the documents section of the
revised combined disclosure demands dated August 3, 2000, and substituting therefor a provision
denying that branch of the motion and directing the defendants Westchester County, Westchester
County Medical Center and Samuel Kasoff to identify the relationship between Westchester
County Medical Center and Dr. John R. Mangiardi; as so modified, the order entered September
27, 2000, is affirmed; without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

 

ORDERED that the defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center, and
Samuel Kasoff shall produce the records or reports of any meeting held pursuant to Education
Law § 6527(3) involving the subject matter of this action in the Supreme Court, Westchester
County, for an in camera review to determine whether any material therein is exempt from
disclosure; and it is further,

 

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to set a
schedule for compliance and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The items numbered 1, 6, and 32 in the documents section of the plaintiff’s combined disclosure
demands (duplicated by the items numbered 1, 4, and 21 in the documents section of the
plaintiff’s revised combined disclosure demands), are proper insofar as the plaintiff seeks
disclosure of statements made or given by the individual defendants at or to any meeting held
pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3) involving the subject matter of this action (see vanBergen
v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 277 AD2d 374; Lakshmanan v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 202 AD2d
398, 399; Swartzenberg v Trivedi, 189 AD2d 151, 153- 154). Thus, the defendants Westchester
County, Westchester County Medical Center, and Samuel Kasoff, are directed to produce the
records or reports of any such meeting held in connection with the subject matter of this action
in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. Since these materials may contain confidential
material, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, shall conduct an in camera review and redact
any material which is exempt from disclosure.

 

Item 20 of the documents section of the combined disclosure demands is granted to the extent
it seeks the medical staff rules of the Westchester County Medical Center in effect in October
1987 concerning the qualifications required to perform shunt revisions and spinal taps. This
request was improperly denied since it is intelligible and pertains to the procedures performed
on the infant plaintiff. The order entered September 27, 2000, was addressed to the revised
combined disclosure demands, which repeat demands earlier interposed. To the extent this court
is granting the plaintiff the information she seeks on the appeal from the order entered June 19,
2000, it is unnecessary to grant the same relief on the appeal from the order entered September
27, 2000, with the exception of item 26(i) of the revised combined demands regarding Dr. John
R. Mangiardi, the nature of whose relationship with Westchester County Medical Center was not
requested earlier.

 

While the Supreme Court properly found that many of the other discovery requests were
inappropriate, we find that the items granted herein are not vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome or call for the production of privileged or irrelevant materials (see Keller v Nieves,
178 AD2d 509, 510; cf. Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721; Harris v City of New York,
211 AD2d 662, 663; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 91 AD2d 1033).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit (see Kahre- Richardes Family Foundation
v Village of Baldwinsville, 101 AD2d 689).

 

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.

 

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2002.

Makris v Westchester County

END OF DOCUMENT