Pennings v Napoli & Shkolnik, PLLC

2024 NY Slip Op 32245(U)

July 2, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 154392/2022

Judge: Lisa S. Headley

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.
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 1 of 10

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY .

Plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, her former attorneys, for 

professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract after the defendants 

allegedly failed to protect her interests in all aspects of defendants’ representation of the plaintiff 

in another action where she sought damages against the doctor who performed her hip surgery, 

and the hip replacement manufacturer for medical negligence, which was dismissed with 

prejudice. 

Before the Court is the motion filed by defendants, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC s/h/a Napoli & 

Shkolnik, PLLC and Nicholas R. Farnolo (collectively “Defendants N&S”), pursuant to CPLR

§3103, for an Order 1) denying plaintiff’s August 23, 2023 Request for Admissions (the 

“Request”); 2) denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating plaintiff’s August 23, 2023 “Notice to 

Take Plaintiff’s Deposition” (the “Deposition Notice”); 3) pursuant to Judiciary Law §470, 

directing plaintiff to cure her lack of an attorney having a physical office in the State of New York, 

and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The plaintiff filed opposition, 

and argues that the defendants’ motion for a protective order should be denied because the plaintiff 

is “seeking the admission of facts which cannot reasonably be disputed.”

This Court held a conference with counsel regarding the instant motion on March 7, 2024, 

and the following Requests for Admission were resolved and Defendants N&S agreed to submit 

answers to Numbers 1, 2, and 3. (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 25 at page 3). The portion of the

defendants’ motion requesting an Order that the plaintiff’s attorney cures the lack of having a 

physical office within the State of New York has been resolved. In addition, the portion of the 

motion seeking to deny, limit, condition or regulate the plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, which seeks 

to conduct the deposition of defendant Farnolo in the state of New Jersey, is denied as moot as the 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. LISA S. HEADLEY PART 28M

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 154392/2022

 MOTION DATE 03/07/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 002

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

MARIE PENNINGS,

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC,NICHOLAS R. FARNOLO, 

JOHN & JANE DOES, ESQ., I-X, ABC INC.,I-X, XYZ 

PARTNERSHIP I-X

 Defendant. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

1 of 10 [* 1]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 2 of 10

plaintiff acknowledges that the defendants’ depositions will be conducted in Manhattan pursuant 

to CPLR §3110.

The Court will address the remaining requests contained in the Notice to Admit.

“The purpose of the notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters

which will not be in dispute at trial.” See, Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O’Neill, 104 A.D.3d 

664 (2d Dep’t 2013); (internal citations omitted). “ A notice to admit may not be used to request 

admission of material issues, and is only properly employed to eliminate from trial matters which 

are easily provable and about which there can be no controversy.” Murphy v. University Club, 200 

A.D.2d 532, 533 (1st Dep’t 1994) citing, Taylor v. Blair, 116 A.D.2d 204, 206 (1st Dep’t 1986).

The notice to admit is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, or seek admissions that 

go “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra; Genna v.

Klempner, 195 A.D.3d 444 (1st Dep’t 2021) [notice seeking ultimate and conclusory facts is 

improper]; Stanger v. Morgan, 100 A.D.3d 545, 546 (1st Dep’t 2012] [notice improperly sought 

admission of defendant’s negligence in operation of vehicle]; Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc. v.

Cicchiello, 273 A.D.2d 6, 6 (1st Dep’t 2000) [improper to seek admissions on disputed matters].

Furthermore, the Notice to Admit may not seek admission as to liability. See, Altman v. Kelly, 128 

A.D.3d 741, 742 (2d Dep’t 2015). The Notice to Admit may not also seek causation, or something 

that requires expert proof, (see, Berg v. Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 A.D.2d 760, 760 (1st Dep’t 

1984)), an interpretation of law or legal conclusion, (see, Matter of Luthmann v. Gulino, 131 

A.D.3d 636, 637 (2d Dep’t 2015); Villa v. New York City Hous. Auth., 107 A.D.2d 619, 621 (1st

Dep’t 1985), or a hotly contested issue. See, Fein v. Cook, 153 A.D.3d 1168, 1168 (1st Dep’t 2017)

[improperly sought admissions regarding employment status, a disputed issue central to action]. 

Item No. 4

The defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 4, which states:

“Defendants had a duty to prosecute Plaintiff’s claim against and and [sic] all parties, individuals 

and/or corporations that are found to be liable under the law, for wrongs and injury suffered by 

Plaintiff related to a defective hip implant.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks a legal 

conclusion. The Court agrees and finds that this question seeks a legal conclusion, and therefore, 

the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 4. 

Item No. 5

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 5, which states:

“Defendants’ retainer agreement, signed by Plaintiff on March 23, 2017, did not restrict 

Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff to solely a negligence claim against the physician.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of the matters at issue”, and therefore, the 

Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 5. 

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

2 of 10 [* 2]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 3 of 10

Item No. 6

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 6, which states: “Defendants 

retainer agreement, signed by Plaintiff on March 23, 2017, did not restrict Defendants’

representation of Plaintiff to solely a products liability claim against the manufacturer.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of the matters at issue”, and therefore, the 

Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 6. 

Item No. 7

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 7, which states: “At the time 

Plaintiff became a client of Defendants, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had a prior claim 

against Stryker for surgery performed in 2011 which had previously settled.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. This Court disagrees, and the Defendants are directed to 

answer Item number 7. 

Item No. 8

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 8, which states: 

“Defendants, or an employee/associate of Defendants, had a discussion with Plaintiff regarding 

the possibility of two (2) lawsuits; one against the surgeon who implanted a second recalled hip 

during the 2014 revision surgery, and one against the manufacturer of the recalled product.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that this question seeks ultimate and 

conclusory facts, and therefore, the defendants are directed not to answer Item number 8.

Item No. 10

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 10, which states: “On 

December 2, 2018, Defendants filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Plaintiff which alleged 

negligence/products liability due to the 2011 implantation of a recalled product.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

This Court disagrees, and the Defendants are directed to respond to Item number 10. 

Item No. 12

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 12, which states: “In 2019, 

Plaintiff called Defendant on numerous occasions to request updates on the progress of her case 

against Stryker and Dr. Trapp and was told that her case was proceeding well.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that the defendants are directed to answer

Item number 12.

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

3 of 10 [* 3]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 4 of 10

Item No. 13

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 13, which states: “In 2020, 

Plaintiff called Defendant on numerous occasions to request updates on the progress of her case 

against Stryker and Dr. Trapp and was told that her case was proceeding well.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that the defendants are directed to answer

Item number 13.

Item No. 14

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 14, which states: “In 2021, 

Plaintiff called Defendant on numerous occasions to request updates on the progress of her case 

against Stryker and Dr. Trapp and was told that her case was proceeding well.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that the defendants are directed to answer

Item number 14.

Item No. 15

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 15, which states: “On March 

21, 2019, Defendants were contacted by Alan Ahearne, Esq. regarding a substitution of attorney 

for Plaintiff.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of communications between thirdparties and unidentified “defendants.” This Court disagrees, and the defendants are directed to 

respond to Item number 15. 

Item No. 16

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 16, which states: “On July 

2, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter stating that Defendants have been ‘working on’ her 

lawsuit.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

However, this Court finds that to the extent defendants’ attorney cannot locate the relevant 

documents, they may seek additional copies from plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the defendants are 

directed to answer Item number 16.

Item No. 17

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 17, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants had conducted 

“considerable discovery” for Plaintiff’s lawsuit.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

This Court finds that to the extent defendants’ attorney cannot locate the relevant documents; they 

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

4 of 10 [* 4]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 5 of 10

may seek additional copies from plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the defendants are directed to 

answer Item number 17.

Item No. 18

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 18, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants had discussed 

Plaintiff’s case with an expert.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. To 

the extent defendants’ attorney cannot locate the relevant documents, they may seek additional 

copies from plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the defendants are directed to answer Item number 18.

Item No. 22

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 22, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants were unable to pursue 

Plaintiff's case because plaintiff’s hip product contained polyethylene or ceramic component.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to plaintiff’s 

interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. To the extent

defendants’ attorney cannot locate the relevant documents, they may seek additional copies from 

plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the defendants are directed to answer Item number 22.

Item No. 23

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 23, which states: “Plaintiff’s 

hip product in question did not contain polyethylene or ceramic components.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are directed to 

not answer Item number 23.

Item No. 24

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 24, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants were unable to pursue 

Plaintiff's case because plaintiff did not have a revision procedure on her Stryker LIFT V 40 Metal 

on Metal Device.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

The Court finds that the Defendants are directed to answer.

Item No. 25

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 25, which states: “Plaintiff 

did have a revision procedure on her Stryker LIFT V 40 Metal on Metal Device.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are directed to 

not answer Item number 25.

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

5 of 10 [* 5]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 6 of 10

Item No. 26

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 26, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants were unable to pursue 

Plaintiff's case because plaintiff’s revision surgery was due to loosening rather than metallosis.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. 

The Court finds that the Defendants are directed to answer Item number 26.

Item No. 27

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 27, which states: “Plaintiff’s 

revision surgery was not due to loosening rather than metallosis.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are directed to 

not answer Item number 27.

Item No. 28

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 28, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants were unable to pursue 

Plaintiff's case because plaintiff’s revision surgery was revised due to infection or without evidence 

of metallosis.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. 

The Court finds that the Defendants are directed to answer Item number 28.

Item No. 29

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 29, which states: “Plaintiff’s 

revision surgery was not revised due to infection or without evidence of metallosis.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are directed to 

not answer Item number 29.

Item No. 30

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 30, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants were unable to pursue 

Plaintiff's case because plaintiff had previously settled a hip device litigation with Stryker and the 

release entered into bars additional recovery on a second product.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents.

The Court finds that the Defendants are directed to answer Item number 30.

Item No. 31

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 31, which states: “Plaintiff’s 

previous settlement did not bar additional recovery on a second product.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information, and seeks a legal conclusion. The Court finds that this question 

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

6 of 10 [* 6]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 7 of 10

goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the defendants are directed to not answer

Item number 31.

Item No. 32

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 32, which states: “The 

settlement agreement regarding Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit due to the 2011 impact expressly referred 

only to plaintiffs who had affected products which were removed via revision surgery before 

November 3, 2014.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to plaintiff’s 

interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. The Court finds 

that this question goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed 

to not answer Item number 32.

Item No. 33

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 33, which states: “Plaintiff’s 

revision surgery following the 2014 implantation did not occur until 2017.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks improper admissions as to detailed technical, 

medical, or scientific information. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are directed to 

not answer Item number 33.

Item No. 34

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 34, which states: “The letter 

sent from Defendant to Plaintiff on July 2, 2020, indicated that Defendants “negotiated a dismissal 

without prejudice.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to plaintiff’s 

interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. Defendants also 

contend that plaintiff does not ask defendants to admit to the “genuineness of any papers or 

documents” under CPLR §3123. The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of the matters 

at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 34.

Item No. 36

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 36, which states:

“Defendants wrote the July 2, 2020, letter to Plaintiff despite knowing that her case was about to 

be dismissed with prejudice due to Defendant’s negligence.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to the parties’ claims 

and defenses and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. This Court finds that this question 

goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer

Item number 36.

Item No. 37

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 37, which states: 

“Defendants wrote the July 2, 2020, letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to have Plaintiff believe her 

case was without merit.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to the parties’ claims 

and defenses and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. This Court finds that this question 

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

7 of 10 [* 7]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 8 of 10

goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer

Item number 37.

Item No. 38

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 38, which states: 

“Following the July 2, 2020, letter from Defendant to Plaintiff, Plaintiff attempted to contact 

defendant on numerous occasions.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court agrees, and therefore, the defendants are 

directed to not answer Item number 38. 

Item No. 41

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 41, which states: 

“Defendants never provided notice to Plaintiff of the deficiency notice dated December 5, 2019.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to the parties’ claims 

and defenses and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. This Court finds that this question 

goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer

Item number 41.

Item No. 42

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 42, which states: “With 

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Defendant violated CMO#6.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to plaintiff’s 

interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents, and seeks a legal 

conclusion. Defendants also argue that this improperly seeks the parties’ claims and defenses 

and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. The Court finds that this question goes “to the 

heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the defendants are directed to not answer Item number 

42.

Item No. 43

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 43, which states: “With 

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Defendant was found to have flagrantly disregarded the court’s order 

and discovery obligations.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. 

Defendants also argue that this improperly seeks the parties’ claims and defenses and/or other 

disputed issues of fact in the litigation. The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of the 

matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 43.

Item No. 44

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 44, which states: “With 

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

8 of 10 [* 8]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 9 of 10

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Defendant was warned that Defendant's continued violation of Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 11 would result in sanctions.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks admissions 

to plaintiff’s interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. 

Defendants also argue that this request improperly seeks admissions to the parties’ claims and 

defenses and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. The Court finds that this question 

goes “to the heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer

Item number 44.

Item No. 45

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 45, which states: “With

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with prejudice.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions, and seeks a legal

conclusion. The Court disagrees, and the Defendants are directed to answer Item number 45. 

Item No. 46

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 46, which states: “With 

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with prejudice due to Defendant’s 

failure to comply with CMO#6.”

Defendants argue that this request seeks impermissible admissions as to plaintiff’s 

interpretation and/or the contents of documents without providing the documents. Defendants also

argue that this request seeks a legal conclusion. The Court finds that this question goes “to the 

heart of the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 

46.

Item No. 47

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 47, which states: “With 

regard to the lawsuit brought by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court (Docket No: 

MDL No. 1:17-md-2768-IT), Plaintiff’s had a valid cause of action.”

Defendants argue that this requests improperly seeks admissions to the parties’ claims and 

defenses and/or other disputed issues of fact in the litigation. Defendants also argue that this 

request seeks a legal conclusion. The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of the matters 

at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 47.

Item No. 48

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 48, which states:

“Defendants never notified Plaintiff of any discovery deficiency as outlined by the Hon. Indira 

Talwani in her August 3, 2020, Memorandum and Order.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of 

the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 48.

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

9 of 10 [* 9]
154392/2022 PENNINGS, MARIE vs. NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK, PLLC ET AL

Motion No. 002

Page 10 of 10

Item No. 49

Defendants contest the Request for Admission in Item number 49, which states:

“Defendants failed to prosecute any of Plaintiff’s claims regarding the defective hip implant as 

referenced in the March 23, 2017, retainer agreement.”

The defendants argue that the admission seeks contents of the communications between 

plaintiff and unidentified “defendants” and/or “an employee/associate of defendants” many 

without specification of the date of same. The Court finds that this question goes “to the heart of 

the matters at issue.” Therefore, the Defendants are directed to not answer Item number 49.

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the defendants shall furnish the responses and/or documents to the Notice 

to Admit, as directed herein, within 30 days from the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the portion of the defendants’ motion requesting an Order that the 

plaintiff’s attorney cures the lack of having a physical office within the State of New York has 

been resolved; and it is further

ORDERED that the portion of the motion seeking to deny, limit, condition or regulate the 

plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, which seeks to conduct the deposition of defendant Farnolo in the 

state of New Jersey, is DENIED as moot at the plaintiff acknowledges that the defendants’ 

depositions will be conducted in Manhattan pursuant to CPLR §3110; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall proceed with discovery in good faith and in an 

expeditious manner; and it is further

ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein has 

nonetheless been considered. 

This Constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

7/2/2024

DATE LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 154392/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024

10 of 10 [* 10]