Ashley M. v. Marcinkowski

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order granting renewal and denying defendants' motion to quash subpoenas and for a protective order in a personal-injury action involving an alleged dog attack. The court held that veterinary records were material and necessary to the action and that Education Law § 6714 does not prohibit veterinarians from producing treatment records pursuant to a subpoena.

Holdings

1. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to renew because the motion was based on new deposition facts that were unavailable when the original motion was decided and that would change the prior determination.
2. The veterinary records were material and necessary to the prosecution of plaintiff's action because they could contain information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence.
3. Education Law § 6714 does not prohibit a veterinarian from providing treatment records pursuant to a subpoena.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff leave to renew based on deposition transcripts unavailable when the original motions were decided.
2. Whether the veterinary records were material and necessary to the action under CPLR 3101(a).
3. Whether Education Law § 6714 prohibits a veterinarian from producing treatment records pursuant to a subpoena.

Disposition

affirmed