Narrative Opinion Summary
In a medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Karla Moskowitz, reviewed a motion filed by the plaintiffs seeking disclosure of the identities of the infant plaintiff's treating physicians interviewed by the defendants' attorney, production of related documents, and an order restraining further interviews. The court denied the motion, with a unanimous decision affirming that such interviews are restricted only during the pretrial phase and not applicable here as the interview was conducted after the note of issue was filed. Furthermore, the court determined that the documents associated with these interviews are protected as attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c). The request for disclosure of the physicians' identities was rendered moot when the defendants' attorney confirmed that only one interview had been conducted with a single identified physician. The decision was upheld by Justices Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, Tom, and Mazzarelli, thereby supporting the attorney's actions and maintaining the confidentiality of the work product.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Work Product Protectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the documents related to the attorney's interviews were protected under CPLR 3101(c) as attorney work product, thus not subject to disclosure.
Reasoning: The court also ruled that the documents related to the attorney's interviews were protected as attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c).
Disclosure of Treating Physicians' Identitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to compel the disclosure of treating physicians' identities became moot after the defendants' attorney confirmed only one interview was conducted with an identified physician.
Reasoning: The request to compel the identification of treating physicians became moot since the defendants' attorney confirmed that only one interview was conducted with one identified physician.
Restrictions on Interviewing Treating Physicianssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing with precedents that restrict defendants from interviewing plaintiffs' treating physicians without a court order or consent only during the pretrial phase, which was not applicable here as the interview occurred post-note of issue filing.
Reasoning: The court unanimously affirmed the denial without costs, agreeing with precedents from the Second and Third Departments that restrict defendants in medical malpractice actions from interviewing plaintiffs' treating physicians without a court order or the plaintiff's consent only during the pretrial phase.