| Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07566 [66 AD3d 803] |
| October 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mohamed M. Abdalla, Respondent, v Mazl Taxi, Inc., etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Phillips, Krantz & Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Heath T. Buzin of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mayersohn, J.),dated May 22, 2009, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the plaintiffto provide authorizations for the release of certain medical records and for leave to extend theirtime to file a motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exerciseof discretion, with costs, and those branches of the defendants' motion which were to compel theplaintiff to provide authorizations for the release of his medical records pertaining to his diabetesand for leave to extend their time to file a motion for summary judgment are granted.
"It is well settled that a party must provide duly executed and acknowledged writtenauthorizations for the release of pertinent medical records under the liberal discovery provisionsof the CPLR . . . when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege byaffirmatively putting his or her physical or mental condition in issue" (Cynthia B. v NewRochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-457 [1983]; see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73NY2d 278 [1989]; Avila v 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d 266, 267 [2002]). Here,the plaintiff affirmatively placed his entire medical condition in controversy through the broadallegations of physical injury and mental anguish contained in his bill of particulars (see Diamond v Ross Orthopedic Group,P.C., 41 AD3d 768, 769 [2007]; Avila v 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d at267; St. Clare v Cattani, 128 AD2d 766 [1987]). In addition, the nature and severity ofthe plaintiff's previous medical condition is material and necessary to the issue of damages, ifany, recoverable for a claimed loss of enjoyment of life due to his current injuries (see Orlando v Richmond Precast, Inc.,53 AD3d 534 [2008]; Weber vRyder TRS, Inc., 49 AD3d 865 [2008]; Diamond v Ross Orthopedic Group, P.C.,41 AD3d at 769). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to compelthe plaintiff to provide authorizations for the release of his medical records pertaining to hisdiabetes should have been granted.[*2]
The defendants established good cause in support of thatbranch of their motion which was for leave to extend their time to move for summary judgmentuntil 120 days after receipt of all outstanding discovery, since there was significant discoveryoutstanding at the time the note of issue was filed (see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp.,95 NY2d 124 [2000]; Jones vGrand Opal Constr. Corp., 64 AD3d 543 [2009]; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682 [2007]; Herrera v Felice Realty Corp., 22AD3d 723, 724 [2005]). Therefore, that branch of their motion should have been granted.Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.