| Silberstein v Maimonides Med. Ctr. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07737 [77 AD3d 910] |
| October 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shimon Silberstein, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian,Rivka Silberstein, and by His Father and Natural Guardian, Joseph Silberstein, et al.,Appellants, v Maimonides Medical Center et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal,as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Steinhardt, J.), dated March 6, 2009, as denied those branches of their motion which were tovacate so much of a preliminary conference order of the same court dated September 23, 2008, asdirected them to disclose the identity of the mohel who performed the bris milah, orcircumcision, on the infant plaintiff and for a protective order regarding the identity of the mohel,and granted those branches of the defendants' respective cross motions which were to compeldisclosure of the identity of the mohel.
Ordered that the order dated March 6, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with onebill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor arematters resting within the Supreme Court's discretion and, absent an improvident exercise of thatdiscretion, the determination of the Supreme Court will not be disturbed on appeal (seeMatter of U. S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. of Am.], 47 NY2d 914, 916 [1979];Rinaldi v Evenflo Co., Inc., 62AD3d 856 [2009]; Gillen v UticaFirst Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 647 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in directing the plaintiffs to disclose the identity of the mohel who performed thecircumcision on the infant plaintiff, as the identity of the mohel was material and necessary to thedefense of the action (see CPLR 3101 [a]). Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi,JJ., concur.