Narrative Opinion Summary
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court of Kings County. Initially, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion to vacate its default, citing a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Additionally, the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was denied, and a protective order was issued for the defendant. Upon renewal, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, allowing examination of specific items related to the defendant's liability insurance policies within 20 days. The court found there were unresolved disputes warranting the renewal of the discovery motion, although some requests were deemed privileged or overly broad. The appeal from the denial of reargument was dismissed as such orders are non-appealable. Ultimately, the first order was affirmed in part, while the second order was reversed in part, allowing for the renewed discovery motion to proceed. The judges concurred with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An appeal from the denial of a motion for reargument is dismissed as such an order is not appealable.
Reasoning: The appeal from the September order's denial of reargument is also dismissed since no appeal can be made from such an order.
Default Judgment and Vacating Defaultsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no impropriety in excusing the defendant's default, citing a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense as justification.
Reasoning: The court found no impropriety in excusing the defendant's default in serving an amended answer, noting a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense.
Discovery and Inspection Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court initially denied the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, but upon renewal, it granted the motion allowing examination of specific items related to the defendant's liability insurance policies.
Reasoning: Upon renewal, the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and inspection is granted, modifying the previous order to allow examination of specific items related to the defendant's liability insurance policies and claims made during the period of the plaintiff's care.
Scope of Permissible Discoverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that while the plaintiff is entitled to certain relevant discovery, other requests were deemed privileged or overly broad.
Reasoning: The plaintiff is entitled to relevant discovery, while other requests were deemed privileged or overly broad.