Court Opinion

ID: 9939436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:10:53.661604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:13.403362
License: Public Domain

Diamond v Cooperman
               2024 NY Slip Op 30414(U)
                    February 6, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157639/2023
          Judge: Kathleen Waterman-Marshall
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 02/06/2024 04:50 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 157639/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. KATHLEEN WATERMAN-MARSHALL                                 PART                              09M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          157639/2023
             MICHAEL DIAMOND
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         11/09/2023
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             DAVID A. COOPERMAN,                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
            17, 18
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       CONTEMPT                         .

                    Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Petitioner Michael Diamond (“Mr.
            Diamond”) for an order finding Respondent David A. Cooperman, M.D. (“Dr. Cooperman”) in
            contempt of the Decision and Order dated August 31, 2023 (Edwards, J.), which granted Mr.
            Diamond’s petition, pursuant to, inter alia, Public Health Law §18 (2), for pre-action disclosure
            of his medical records (“the August 31, 2023 Order”), and awarding Mr. Diamond a fine and
            attorney’s fees, is granted in part.

                    The facts and law are simple, clear and warrant a finding of contempt. Dr. Cooperman, a
            practicing psychiatrist, treated Mr. Diamond for Asperger’s Syndrome from 2011 to 2022. On
            multiple occasions, Mr. Diamond requested that Dr. Cooperman provide him with a copy of his
            medical records. Dr. Cooperman failed to respond to the requests and Mr. Diamond commenced
            the instant proceeding for pre-action disclosure. The August 31, 2023 Order granted the petition
            and directed Dr. Cooperman to produce to Mr. Diamond a certified, page numbered, copy of his
            complete office records regarding Mr. Diamond’s treatment for the period from 2011 to 2022,
            within thirty (30) days of service of the August 31, 2023 Order with notice of entry, and a
            HIPAA compliant authorization executed by Mr. Diamond.

                    Mr. Diamond complied with the August 31, 2023 Order. On September 26, 2023, he
            served the Order with notice of entry, and a HIPAA compliant authorization upon Dr.
            Cooperman at his last known address. To date, however, Dr. Cooperman has failed to provide
            Mr. Diamond with his medical records and has otherwise failed to communicate with Mr.
            Diamond or his attorney.

                  This motion for contempt ensued. The court signed the Order to Show Cause on
            November 10, 2023, and the process server personally served Dr. Cooperman with the Order to
            Show Cause and supporting papers on November 16, 2023. Dr. Cooperman defaulted in

             157639/2023 DIAMOND, MICHAEL vs. COOPERMAN MD., DAVID A.                                                Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 04:50 PM                                                INDEX NO. 157639/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

            opposing this contempt motion, and while this Court is empowered to grant the relief sought by
            Mr. Diamond on that basis alone, the Court reaches the merits in granting the motion.

                     Judiciary Law § 753 (A) empowers the court to “punish, by fine and imprisonment, or
            either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party
            to a civil action . . . pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced, in a
            case.” Civil contempt is available where “a party to the action” is guilty of “disobedience to a
            lawful mandate of the court” (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A][3]). The aim of civil contempt is “the
            vindication of a private right of a party to litigation and any penalty imposed upon the contemnor
            is designed to compensate the injured private party for the loss of or interference with that right”
            (McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 582-583 [1983]).

                    In order for the court to find civil contempt: (1) a lawful order of the court, which
            “clearly express[es] an unequivocal mandate,” must be in effect; (2) the party sought to be held
            in contempt “must have had knowledge of the court’s order”; (3) the alleged contemnor must
            have disobeyed the order; and (4) violation of the order must have resulted in prejudice to the
            right of a party to the litigation (McCormick, 59 NY2d at 583 [civil contempt found where
            nursing home transferred residents in violation of court order that expressed “clear mandate”
            staying all steps to involuntarily discharge residents pending appeal]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan,
            114 AD3d 4, 16-17 [2d Dept 2013]). “A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed
            to the sound discretion of the court, and the movant bears the burden of proving the contempt by
            clear and convincing evidence” (El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d at 10). A hearing is not necessary where,
            as here, the movant makes their prima facie showing which the contemnor fails to refute (see
            Doors v Greenberg, 151 AD2d 550 [2d Dept 1989] [where record unequivocally shows party
            disobeyed orders, hearing unnecessary prior to finding contempt]).

                    The instant record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Dr. Cooperman disobeyed
            a lawful mandate of the court warranting a finding of contempt (El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4). First,
            the August 31, 2023 Order is a lawful and valid order which has been in effect, and which clearly
            expresses an unequivocal mandate that Dr. Cooperman produce to Mr. Diamond a certified, page
            numbered copy of his complete office records regarding Mr. Diamond’s treatment for the period
            from 2011 to 2022, within thirty (30) days of service of the Order with notice of entry and a
            HIPAA compliant authorization. Second, Dr. Cooperman had notice of the August 31, 2023
            Order and each of its terms: Mr. Diamond served the Order with notice of entry and the required
            HIPAA authorization upon Dr. Cooperman at his last known address (CPLR 2103 [c]). Third, it
            is without question that, as Mr. Diamond clearly and convincingly established, Dr. Cooperman
            disobeyed the August 31, 2023 Order: to date, Dr. Cooperman has not provided Mr. Diamond
            with a single page of medical records and has, in effect, ignored court order to do so. Dr.
            Cooperman defaulted in opposing this motion despite having been personally served with the
            Order to Show Cause and supporting papers, including another copy of the subject Order.

                   Dr. Cooperman’s actions were calculated to and did defeat, impair, impede, and prejudice
            Mr. Diamond’s rights to his medical records set forth in, and required by, the August 31, 2023
            Order (see Doors, 151 AD2d at 551 [“In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt, it is not
            necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience,
            regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices

             157639/2023 DIAMOND, MICHAEL vs. COOPERMAN MD., DAVID A.                             Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 04:50 PM                                               INDEX NO. 157639/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

            the rights of a party.”]). Accordingly, this Court finds that Dr. Cooperman has willfully violated,
            and is in contempt of, the August 31, 2023 Order (see McCormick, 59 NY2d 574; El-Dehdan,
            114 AD3d 4; Doors, 151 AD2d 550).

                    The Court further finds that Mr. Diamond is entitled to a fine in the form of costs and
            expenses consisting of reasonable counsel fees for work performed in bringing this Order to
            Show Cause, plus a $250 fine, as Dr. Cooperman’s conduct in violation of the August 31, 2023
            Order caused these costs and expenses to be incurred (Judiciary Law 773 [“Where it is not
            shown that such an actual loss or injury has been caused, a fine may be imposed, not exceeding
            the amount of the complainant’s costs and expenses, and two hundred and fifty dollars in
            addition thereto”]; Gonnard v Guido, 141 AD3d 649, 650 [2nd Dept 2016] [“Judiciary Law §773
            permits recovery of attorney’s fees from the offending party by a party aggrieved by
            contemptuous conduct (citations omitted). The intent of Judiciary Law § 773 is to indemnify the
            aggrieved party for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt (citations omitted).
            Attorney’s fees that are documented and directly related to the contemptuous conduct are
            generally recoverable unless they are proven excessive or reduced by the court in a reasoned
            decision.”]; Gordon v Janover, 121 AD2d 599, 600–01 [2nd Dept 1986] [“The court may, in an
            action to punish for civil contempt, where, as here, no actual damage has been demonstrated,
            impose upon the offending party the other party’s reasonable costs and expenses, including
            attorney’s fees.”]). As Mr. Diamond’s moving papers did not include redacted legal bills or an
            attorney affirmation itemizing the time spent and charges incurred in making this motion, the
            Court cannot determine whether the $10,000 in attorney’s fees requested is reasonable.
            Consequently, counsel may submit an affirmation of legal services with redacted legal bills
            establishing the amount of attorney’s fees incurred on this motion, upon which the Court will
            issue a separate order awarding the attorney’s fees plus the $250 fine.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that Mr. Diamond’s motion for an order holding Dr. Cooperman in contempt
            of the August 23, 2023 Decision and Order, is granted; and it is further

                     ORDERED that Mr. Diamond established that the August 31, 2023 Decision and Order
            is a lawful order of the court expressing an unequivocal mandate which has been and remains in
            full force and effect, that Dr. Cooperman disobeyed the August 31, 2023 Decision and Order,
            that Dr. Cooperman had knowledge of the August 31, 2023 Decision and Order, and that his
            failure to produce to Mr. Diamond the medical record required thereunder has prejudiced Mr.
            Diamond’s rights; and it is further

                   ORDERED that Dr. Cooperman failed to present any competent evidence establishing a
            defense to his willful non-compliance with the August 31, 2023 Decision and Order and failed to
            submit any proof of some other obstacle to his compliance, or tending to raise a question of fact
            on such defenses; and it is further

                   ORDERED that Mr. Diamond is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees incurred on this
            contempt motion, plus a fine in the sum of $250. Within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof,
            counsel for Mr. Diamond may submit to this Court via NYSCEF an affirmation of legal services

             157639/2023 DIAMOND, MICHAEL vs. COOPERMAN MD., DAVID A.                             Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 04:50 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 157639/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

            with redacted legal bills establishing the amount of attorney’s fees incurred on this motion, upon
            which the Court will issue a separate order awarding Mr. Diamond reasonable attorney’s fees,
            plus a $250 fine, to be paid by Dr. Cooperman.

                     2/6/2024
                      DATE                                                   KATHLEEN WATERMAN-MARSHALL,
                                                                                        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

             157639/2023 DIAMOND, MICHAEL vs. COOPERMAN MD., DAVID A.                                 Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]