Court Opinion

ID: 9966033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:09:59.103621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.435710
License: Public Domain

Kaushansky v McCulloch
               2024 NY Slip Op 31527(U)
                     April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 155721/2019
                 Judge: Eric Schumacher
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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 03:42 PM                                                INDEX NO. 155721/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. ERIC SCHUMACHER                              PART                              23M
                               Justice
            --------------------X                                             INDEX NO.           155721/2019
             MICHAEL KAUSHANSKY,
                                                                              MOTION DATE          04/30/2024
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                              MOTION SEQ. NO.          004
                                       -v-
             ERIN MCCULLOCH et ano.,                                             DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                        MOTION
                                              Defendants.
            --------------------X
            NYSCEF doc nos. 110-140 and 143-161 were read on this motion to compel.

            Motion by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 to compel, etc. denied.

                                                           BACKGROUND
                     Plaintiff commenced this action on June 10, 2019, by filing the summons and complaint
            (see NYSCEF doc no. 1). As is relevant here, plaintiff alleges that, on March 13, 2019, while at a
            facility owned and operated by defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter Equinox),
            defendant Erin McCulloch dropped a weighted bar on plaintiff, causing him injury (see id. ,, 5,
            23-24).

                    The prior motion court had been actively conferencing this case since December 6, 2019.
            As is relevant here, on July 14, 2021, the prior motion court issued a conference order directing
            that an IME with Dr. Erlanger, defendants' neuropsychologist, was scheduled for July 23, 2021
            (see NYSCEF doc no. 58).

                    On September 23, 2021, the last status conference before plaintiff filed the note of issue,
            the prior motion court issued a conference order stating that "[a]bsent good cause shown, any
            discovery issues not raised herein will be deemed waived" (id. at 2).

                     On October 20, 2021, plaintiff filed the note of issue and the certificate of readiness for
            trial (see NYSCEF doc no. 64). As is relevant here, the certificate ofreadiness for trial states that
            "[t]here are no outstanding requests for discovery", that "[d]iscovery proceedings now know to
            be necessary [are] completed", and that "[t]he case is ready for trial" (id. at 2).

                    On June 29, 2023, Equinox moved pursuant to CPLR3124 and 22 NYCRR § 202.2l(d)
            for an order compelling a post-note deposition and IME of plaintiff, which this court granted (see
            NYSCEF doc no. 107). In this court's September 5, 2023 decision and order, the court directed
            the parties to appear for a post-note discovery conference on December 6, 2023 (see id.).

             155721/2019 KAUSHANSKY v MCCULLOCH et ano. .                                          Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 004

[* 1]                                                        1 of 4
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 03:42 PM                                                INDEX NO. 155721/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                   On November 27, 2023, plaintiff filed this motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 for an order
            compelling defendants to produce the raw data generated during a neuropsychological
            assessment of plaintiff performed by Dr. David Erlanger on July 23, 2021, and the test manuals
            and scoring protocols used by Dr. Erlanger in his assessment, else defendants be precluded from
            presenting the testimony of Dr. Erlanger at trial, and pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 for an
            order awarding sanctions against defendants (see NYSCEF doc no. 110). Plaintiff annexes to its
            moving papers formal demands for defendants to produce and exchange the raw data generated
            during Dr. Erlanger's assessment dated October 10, 2023 (see NYSCEF doc nos. 115-118).

                   All parties appeared at the December 6, 2023 post-note conference, and the court issued a
            conference order with directives as to certain outstanding discovery (see NYSCEF doc no. 142).
            The parties wrote on that conference order that "[d]iscovery complete except pending motion re:
            Dr. Erlanger's raw data" (id. at 1).

                                                     DISCUSSION

                    Preliminarily, the court notes that plaintiff seeks post-note discovery. Pursuant to 22
            NYCRR § 202.21 (d), a party must demonstrate unusual or unanticipated circumstances in order
            to be entitled to post-note discovery (see IO Experience Design LLC v C & A Mktg. Inc., 220
            AD3d 444,445 [1st Dept 2023]). Specifically, a party must show that unusual or anticipated
            circumstances developed after the note of issue was filed (see Diamond v WWP Off., LLC, 202
            AD3d 503 [1st Dept 2022] [finding that the defendants were not entitled to post-note discovery
            concerning the back injury the plaintiff sustained as the defendants were aware of the injury for
            three years prior to the filing of the note of issue]). "A lack of diligence in seeking discovery
            does not constitute unusual or unanticipated circumstances warranting post-note of issue
            discovery" (Partow v Van Owners Purch. Bur., Inc., 213 AD3d 578,578 [1st Dept 2023]; see
            also Shulman v ZFX, Inc., 184 AD3d 546,546 [1st Dept 2020] [finding that the motion court
            providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to
            submit to IMEs where the defendant brought the motion more than 14 months after the filing of
            the note of issue, ''without offering any excuse for its inaction or alleging unusual or
            unanticipated circumstances that would warrant the relief requested"]).

                   Here, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate unusual or unanticipated
           circumstances warranting post-note discovery. Plaintiff filed the note of issue and certificate of
           readiness on October 20, 2021, certifying that discovery was complete. It is undisputed that
           defendants served expert exchanges for Dr. Erlanger on August 11, 2021, which included Dr.
           Erlanger's report. It is further undisputed that, on October 10, 2023, approximately two years
           after the filing of the note of issue, plaintiff sent the first formal request for defendants to
           produce and exchange the subject discovery. Plaintiff fails in the papers submitted to address the
           lateness of this· demand. Critically, plaintiff does not allege unusual or unanticipated
           circumstances in the moving papers, nor does plaintiff address the issue at all in the reply papers,
           even though Equinox raised the argument in its opposition papers.

                  Argued or not, it was for plaintiff to have requested the discovery concerning the report,
           exchanged over two months prior to the filing of the note of issue, timely before filing it, but this
           was not done. Moreover, the cases plaintiff cites in support of the application are inapposite as

             155721/2019 KAUSHANSKY v MCCULLOCH et ano.                                           Page 2of4
             Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 03:42 PM                                                INDEX NO. 155721/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            all are either pre-note or made no finding as to whether unusual or unanticipated circumstances
            were present. As such, the court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to the post-note discovery
            requested.

                    In contrast, in motion seq. no. 003 this court granted Equinox's motion pursuant to CPLR
            3124 and 22 NYCRR § 202.21(d) for an order compelling post-note discovery, specifically the
            further deposition and IME of plaintiff. The court found that Equinox had established that
            unanticipated and unusual circumstances had arisen after the filing of the note of issue relating to
            plaintiffs alleged future medical costs and the extent of plaintiffs alleged disability and ability
            to work. Here, it is undisputed that the circumstances today are the same as they were on August
            11, 2021. The only difference now is that plaintiff has made a belated discovery demand over
            two years late and defendants have properly rejected the demand as untimely. The mere fact that
            Equinox was entitled to post-note discovery does not entitle plaintiff to certain other unrelated
            post-note discovery.

                    As to the branch of the motion by plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 for
            sanctions against defendants, that is denied. It is plaintiffs application not defendants' rejection
            of the untimely post-note discovery demand that is without merit.

                                  THIS SPACE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

             155721/2019 KAUSHANSKY v MCCULLOCH et ano.                                            Page 3 of4
             Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 03:42 PM                                                INDEX NO. 155721/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                                                        CONCLUSION

                   Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 22 NYCRR § 130-
            1.1 to compel, etc. is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERED that all discovery is complete; and it is further

                  ORDERED that, within five days of entry, defendants shall serve a copy of this order
           with notice of entry on plaintiff.

                   The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                   4/30/2024
                     DATE                                              /-
                                                                         ~,. LERIC SCHUMACHER, J.S.C.

                                    ~
            CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        GRANTED          0    DENIED    GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE
            155721/2019 KAUSHANSKY v MCCULLOCH et ano.                                            Page 4 of4
            Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                        4 of 4