N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of a plaintiff’s recent medical history when it is material and necessary to assess whether the alleged accident caused the injuries and the resulting damages.

Wiseman v. American Motors Sales Corp. · filed 1984-05-21(a)

Regardless of whether plaintiff alleges aggravation of a pre-existing injury, information as to plaintiff’s injuries, illnesses and physical complaints in the not-too-distant past is undoubtedly “material and necessary” (CPLR 3101, subd [a]; see, also, CPLR 3131) to the preparation of defendant’s defense to the lawsuit with respect to whether the injuries alleged were caused by the accident, and, consequently, to an evaluation of the damages plaintiff sustained as a result thereof (see Allen v Cromwell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of documents about prior accidents and repairs even if the documents may be inadmissible at trial.

Dattmore v. Eagan Real Estate, Inc. · filed 1985-07-12(a)

Although reports of prior accidents or prior or subsequent repairs may be inadmissible at trial, this is not the test for disclosure under CPLR 3101 (a), which is to be liberally construed (Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 608).

Section 3101(a) allows discovery of a party’s medical records when they are material and relevant to the defense of the action.

Waldman v. A.H. Robins Co. · filed 1985-08-13(a)

In the case at bar the medical history of Marvin Waldman is clearly material and relevant to the alleged claim. Not only is he a party to the action, his medical history is vital to a proper determination of the cause of Ellen Waldman’s injuries, and his medical records should be discoverable as information material and relevant to the defense of the action.

CPLR 3101(a) does not require disclosure of records concerning a plaintiff’s preexisting mental condition when the plaintiff does not claim that the accident aggravated it and the records are neither material nor necessary to the defense.

Sternberger v. Offen · filed 1988-03-14(a)

While the plaintiff makes no claim for aggravation of a preexisting emotional or mental condition, nevertheless, the defendants seek information pertaining to the plaintiff’s mental condition during the period of time preceding the accident. This is neither material nor necessary to the defense of this action and the motion to compel disclosure was, therefore, properly denied (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Cooperstein v Patrician Estates, 97 AD2d 426; Andrew F. Capoccia, P. C. v Spiro, 88 AD2d 1100).

Section 3101 permits discovery of collateral source information before a verdict when it is material and necessary to the defense and the plaintiff shows no prejudice.

Fleming v. Bernauer · filed 1987-12-16

Thus, absent some prejudice to plaintiff, and none is claimed here, sound reasons of logic and policy require that collateral source information should be discoverable in like manner as all other matters "material and necessary” to the defense of an action.

Section 3101(a) permits a defendant in a personal injury action to seek authorizations for the plaintiff’s treating physicians’ records, but does not require the defendant to supply duplicate copies.

Tower v. Chemical Bank · filed 1988-05-16(a)

Since disclosure of the medical records of a plaintiff’s treating physicians takes place pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) and 3120 (b) and there is no statutory or court rule (see, CPLR 3121; 22 NYCRR 202.17) requiring the defendants to supply the plaintiffs with duplicate copies of such medical records, the court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for such relief.

A party's mental condition is subject to pretrial discovery when the party puts it in controversy by claiming depression prevents him from working.

Perretta v. Perretta · filed 1988-05-31

By claiming that he was unable to work due to depression the defendant put his mental condition in controversy. Consequently, his mental condition is subject to pretrial discovery (see, CPLR 3101, 3120, 2121; Wegman v Wegman, 37 NY2d 940).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure of a nonparty’s academic records when they may provide evidence relevant to a defense, subject to review and redaction of privileged material.

Baldwin v. Franklin General Hospital · filed 1989-06-12(a)(4)

The appellants stated that their reason for seeking discovery of the academic records is to establish a defense that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff have a genetic cause (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]). Therefore, the appellants have adequately demonstrated that the "discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the defense of the claims prosecuted by the infant plaintiff” (Herbst v Bruhn, 106 AD2d 546, 549; see also, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406).

CPLR 3101(a) favors liberal and full disclosure, but a court may inspect records in camera to determine which portions are material and necessary.

Radon v. State · filed 1988-11-15(a)

We recognize that there is a policy of liberal and full disclosure to be applied to discovery requests pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Jonmaire v Town of W. Seneca, 120 AD2d 928; Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 237; Klatz v Armor Elevator Co., 93 AD2d 633). However, in the circumstances of this case, the court should make an in camera inspection of the ... records and determine what portion of the records, if any, is material and necessary to the prosecution of the issues.

Section 3101(a) permits questions about a mother's prior pregnancies and physical condition when the infant plaintiff puts her medical history at issue.

DeAngelis v. Westchester Gynecologists & Obstetricians, P. C. · filed 1988-12-29(a)

Thus, the questions posed by the appellants’ counsel at the examination before trial of the infant plaintiffs mother concerning her prior pregnancies and her physical condition prior to the pregnancy which resulted in the birth of the infant plaintiff sought relevant information (CPLR 3101 [a]; Hughson v St. Francis Hosp., 93 AD2d 491, 493).

CPLR 3101(a) requires disclosure of medical records relevant to claimed injuries when a plaintiff places his physical and mental condition in controversy.

Anderson v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. · filed 1990-05-11(a)

Having placed his physical and mental condition in controversy, plaintiff may not refuse to disclose material necessary for the defense (see, Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605).

Section 3101(a)(1) permits disclosure of relevant tax return schedules when they are material and necessary to a party’s defense and the party makes a strong showing of necessity and desirability.

Kornblatt v. Jaguar Cars, Inc. · filed 1991-04-08(a)(1)

Applying the holding of Parlato to the present circumstances, we find that the court did not err when it granted that branch of the defendant JCI’s motion which was for discovery and inspection of FOL’s income tax records for 1984 through 1986, particularly when it limited disclosure to the relevant schedules concerning the depreciation of the automobile as a business deduction. These records, which were exclusively under the plaintiff’s control, were material and necessary in JCI’s defense of the action.

CPLR 3101(a) permits discovery of prior injuries to body parts covered by a plaintiff’s broad allegations of bodily injury because those injuries are relevant to trial preparation.

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 1992-03-13(a)

Thus, any prior injuries to plaintiff’s back and leg were relevant and material to trial preparation (see, CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(d) governs the exchange of medical information and permits testimony when a nonwillful disclosure failure causes no surprise or prejudice.

Freeman v. Kirkland · filed 1992-06-16(d)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s treating physicians because of a claimed failure on plaintiff’s part to comply with the rules governing the exchange of medical information (22 NYCRR 202.17 [g]; CPLR 3101 [d]), where, as here, any such failure was not willful (Whitler Contr. Corp. v City of New York, 161 AD2d 484), defendants did not move to compel compliance until after the jury had been selected and the trial itself had commenced (Rhoden v Montalbo, 127 AD2d 645, 646; Valenti v Chanice, 75 AD2d 850), and defendants had available to them alternative sources for the medical information concerning plaintiff’s injuries and course of rehabilitation and thus could not have been surprised or prejudiced when plaintiff’s expert was permitted to testify thereto "in the interests of justice” (see, McDougald v Garber, 135 AD2d 80, 94, mod on other grounds 73 NY2d 246).

Section 3101(a) authorizes a party to demand written authorizations to obtain a treating physician’s medical records concerning another party’s condition.

Diamantstein v. Friedman · filed 1993-12-27(a)

Therefore, the defendant could easily have demanded that the plaintiff furnish him with written authorizations to obtain copies of the treating physician’s medical records regarding the plaintiffs condition as authorized by CPLR 3101 (a).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of prior medical records that may lead to relevant evidence about claimed damages.

Conrad v. Park · filed 1994-05-27(a)

In light of plaintiffs claimed damages for "alteration in performance of activities of daily living”, "loss of enjoyment of life”, and "early retirement in 1984” because of disability, the records of plaintiffs previous shoulder injury may lead to relevant evidence bearing on plaintiffs claim for damages (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; L’Hommedieu v L’Hommedieu, 183 AD2d 754, 755; see also, McGuane v M.C.A., Inc., 182 AD2d 1081, 1083).

Section 3101(f) permits a party to obtain the contents of any insurance agreement.

Keenan v. Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, Inc. · filed 1994-06-13(f)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (f), a party may obtain the contents of any insurance agreement.

Section 3101(a) permits a malpractice plaintiff to obtain the portion of his psychiatric hospital record material and relevant to his claim, despite the hospital’s objection to disclosure.

Fox v. Namani · filed 1994-12-12(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) requires, in part, that "There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by * * * a party”. ... The material sought is material and relevant. Mr. Fox is entitled to access to that portion of his hospital record at Binghamton Psychiatric Center covering his admission and treatment in July 1991 which is the subject of his complaint.

Section 3101(a)(1) permits discovery of documents generated by a party’s employees or agents while administering a contract.

Nab-Tern-Betts v. City of New York · filed 1994-11-10(a)(1)

...the parties’ contract, and are therefore discoverable (CPLR 3101 [a] [1]).

Section 3101 permits disclosure of medical records material and necessary to a personal injury defense, but requires a basis for obtaining unrelated medical records.

Moore v. Gemerek · filed 1995-12-22

Medical records and reports pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff Ethel Moore in this personal injury action are material and necessary to the defense and are therefore discoverable (see, Pizzo v Bunora, 89 AD2d 1013, 1014; CPLR 3101). Defendant, however, has asserted no basis for entitlement to unrelated medical records and reports.

CPLR 3101 does not require disclosure of subsequent repairs when control is admitted and the repair information is not material or relevant to the action.

Cleland v. 60-02 Woodside Corp. · filed 1995-11-06

Accordingly, the information which the plaintiffs sought regarding repair work performed on the stairway and/or stoop subsequent to the accident was not material or relevant to prosecuting the action (see, CPLR 3101) and the failure on the part of the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with this information did not warrant the issuance of an order of preclusion regarding the condition of the stairway and/or stoop at the time of the accident.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of arbitration materials sufficiently likely to bear on the dispute and assist in trial preparation when no confidentiality privilege protects them.

Galleon Syndicate Corp. v. Pan Atlantic Group, Inc. · filed 1996-01-30(a)

These items are not protected from disclosure as confidential material and are subject to discovery, as material sufficiently likely to bear on the dispute and to assist in preparation for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (see, Matter of New York County DES Litig., 171 AD2d 119, 122-123).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of treating physicians’ medical records when they are material and relevant to a personal injury action.

Pagan v. St. John's Preparatory School · filed 1996-05-23(a)

Both the cited case and the portion of the Practice Commentary deal with the disclosure of reports of physicians who will testify at trial, not production of medical and office records, X-rays, films and diagnostic tests, all of which are plainly material and relevant to the action, within the scope of discovery under CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of prior similar injury records when they concern the same product model and type of injury and fall within a relevant time period.

DeDivitis v. International Business Machines Corp. · filed 1996-06-20(a)

So long as the scope of such discovery is pared back to the period from the date that the subject keyboard was manufactured through the date that plaintiff last used the keyboard (see, Cramer v Kuhns, 192 AD2d 893, 894-895; Mestman v Ariens Co., 135 AD2d 516, 517), and is further limited to documents detailing the same or similar injuries alleged by plaintiff, to wit, injuries to the hands and wrists from sustained keyboard use such as carpal tunnel syndrome, they must be produced.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical and disability records that relate to matters in controversy, with in camera review when the records may also contain private or irrelevant material.

Zappi v. Pedigree Ski Shop, Inc. · filed 1997-11-03(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) has been liberally construed to require disclosure of all matter that will assist in the preparation of trial (see, Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 608). ... Under these circumstances, the defendant is entitled to disclosure of the aforementioned records to the extent that they relate to matters in controversy in this action (cf., Sgambellone v Wheatley, 165 Misc 2d 954).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical records that may be useful in preparing a defense to a claim for personal injuries.

Coddington v. Lisk · filed 1998-04-23(a)

There is a strong presumption of disclosing all relevant material (see, CPLR 3101). Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s broad discretion, under the circumstances presented here we find that the court erred in denying defendants’ request to compel plaintiff to execute an authorization for records pertaining to her Methadone Program records.

Section 3101(a)(1) requires a party to disclose material and necessary information; interviews do not replace disclosure through interrogatories.

In re David E. · filed 1998-03-20(a)(1)

As regards the demand for interrogatories, the motion for an order of preclusion is denied. CPLR 3101 (a) (1) provides that: ... “(1) a party”. ... However, the purpose of an interrogatory is for fall disclosure and interviews cannot be equated with disclosure.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of a plaintiff’s entire psychiatric history when it is material and necessary to the defense.

Figueroa v. Palmer · filed 1998-07-20(a)

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s entire psychiatric history is material and necessary to the defense of this action, ... and the defendant is entitled to full discovery regarding it (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; see also, Kenyon v Caruso Dev. Co., 167 AD2d 966).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of treating and examining physicians’ medical records concerning conditions a plaintiff has placed in issue.

Badach v. Caggiano · filed 1998-11-13(a)

The authorizations relate to disclosure of the medical records of plaintiff Michael C. Badach’s treating and examining physicians pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) and 3120 (b), not the release of hospital records referred to in CPLR 3121 (a).

Section 3101(a) requires a showing that requested medical records are relevant to the claims being defended against.

McLane v. Meyer · filed 1999-08-23(a)

However, the affidavits of the respondents’ counsel insufficiently demonstrated the relevancy of the records sought in defending against the claims asserted by the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287; Herbst v Bruhn, 106 AD2d 546; Vohs v Long Is. Jewish Hosp., 89 Misc 2d 347).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of prior medical records relevant to whether a malpractice plaintiff had a preexisting condition, but the request must be limited to pertinent records.

Evans v. Lerch · filed 1999-12-08(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” ... Plaintiff’s claim makes the issue of whether he had preexisting, chronic sinus problems material and necessary to the defense of this action. ... Nevertheless, Lerch’s request for collateral source records prior to February 1999 is overbroad.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure to be material and necessary, but a speculative request for an invasive DNA sample may be denied as premature.

LaVallee v. State of New York Office of Children & Family Services · filed 1999-10-05(a)

Rather, the application falls under the general disclosure provision of CPLR 3101 (a), which requires a showing that the desired disclosure be “material and necessary in the prosecution * * * of an action.” ... However, upon balancing plaintiffs speculative and unsupported “strong belief’ that semen will be recovered from her shoe and in the room into which she fled more than 15 months before, against the invasive nature of the application, the court denies the application as premature and speculative.

Section 3101 permits discovery of relevant and material client files despite an attorney’s retaining lien when the attorney does not claim the files contain confidential or private information.

Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Roemer · filed 2000-07-27

The files sought by plaintiff, however, are clearly relevant and material, and defendant does not claim that the files contain information of a confidential and private nature. The fact that the files may be subject to defendant’s retaining lien does not make the information contained therein defendant’s confidential and private information. Therefore, we see nothing palpably improper in plaintiffs demand for those files.

Section 3101(a) permits a court to limit disclosure of a plaintiff’s past medical records when the requesting party fails to show that older records would yield relevant or admissible evidence.

DeStrange v. Lind · filed 2000-11-20(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendants’ access to the plaintiffs past medical records to the five-year period before the alleged acts of malpractice in controversy, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that access to earlier medical records would result in the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence (see, King v Salvation Army, 240 AD2d 473; Manley v New York City Hous. Auth., 190 AD2d 600).

Section 3101(a) permits a deposition about a party’s assets when evaluating an infant settlement; asset disclosure is not limited to judgment enforcement.

Jeremiah v. Dowe · filed 2001-12-27(a)

We reject defendant’s argument that a deposition concerning a party’s assets is authorized only for purposes of proceedings to enforce a judgment pursuant to CPLR article 52.

Section 3101 allows a court to compel a voice exemplar when it is material and necessary, but the proposed voice print analysis must first be shown to be scientifically reliable and valid.

Mena v. Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2002-05-21

Under this standard, there is no basis in law or logic to distinguish between handwriting exemplars and voice exemplars.... This court holds that before defendant may be so compelled, there must be a threshold demonstration that the voice print analysis proposed by the plaintiffs’ expert will yield information which is not only relevant, but scientifically reliable and valid.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of legal fees paid to defend an action when those payments reduce the defendant's self-insured retention under an excess liability policy.

Henry v. Advance Process Supply Co. · filed 2003-01-27(a)

Under the terms of the excess liability insurance policy under which the defendant Advance Process Supply Company (hereinafter Advance) is an insured, any legal fees paid by Advance in defense of this action reduce the amount of the listed “self-insured retention.” Because the amount of self-insurance for which Advance would be responsible would be reduced by the amount of legal fees it paid in the defense of this action, such fees are discoverable.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of city employee personnel records that are material and necessary to the claims, subject to applicable privileges.

Weingard v. City of New York · filed 2003-12-19(a)

Here, after conducting an in camera inspection of the subject personnel records, the court finds that several of the documents in Augusto’s personnel file are discoverable as they are material and necessary to the claims in this case, and not protected by the public interest privilege.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of psychological treatment when that treatment is relevant to the claims in the action.

Gromoll v. Bertolino · filed 2004-02-11(a)

Therefore, the psychologist’s care and treatment of plaintiff is relevant to this action and she may not insulate questions relating thereto from disclosure (see Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 610 [1981]; Davidson v Steer/Peanut Gallery, 277 AD2d 965, 966 [2000]).

Section 3101(a) permits a vocational rehabilitation examination when it will yield information material and necessary to the defense.

Scotto v. M.D. Carlisle Construction Corp. · filed 2005-05-02(a)

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants demonstrated that an examination of the plaintiff by a vocational rehabilitation expert will yield information that is material and necessary to the defense of the action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 955 [1998]; Freni v Eastbridge Landing Assoc. LP, 309 AD2d 700, 702 [2003]; McDowell v Eagle Trans. Corp., 303 AD2d 655, 656 [2003]; Smith v Manning, 277 AD2d 1004, 1005 [2000]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of documents concerning postaccident remedial measures when control is in dispute and the documents are material and necessary to the action.

Hughes v. Cold Spring Construction Co. · filed 2006-02-03(a)

Here, plaintiff has raised an issue of control, and thus we conclude that documents disclosing the State’s postaccident remedial measures are “material and necessary in the prosecution ... of [this] action” (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits limiting disclosure of past medical records when the requesting party fails to show that all the records are material and necessary to the defense.

Chervin v. Macura · filed 2006-04-18(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendants’ access to the decedent’s past medical records to those records which were related to cardiology, gastroenterology, and obesity treatment and which were only for the five-year period prior to the decedent’s death, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that all of the decedent’s medical records were material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; 3121; Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-457 [1983]; McLane v Damiano, 307 AD2d 338 [2003]; DeStrange v Lind, 277 AD2d 344 [2000]; Coddington v Lisk, 249 AD2d 817 [1998]).

Section 3101(a) treats a request to compel a DNA sample in a contested estate proceeding as a request for discovery.

In re the Estate of Gaynor · filed 2006-06-29(a)

In these circumstances, Mark Thompson’s request that the court direct Jan Gaynor and/or George Thompson to provide a DNA sample is a request for discovery (CPLR 3101). CPLR 3101 (a) provides for discovery of all matter, material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.

Section 3101(a) permits a court to deny a motion to compel disclosure of medical records in its discretion.

Jackson v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center · filed 2007-02-13(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion (see CPLR 3101 [a]; 4504 [a]).

Section 3101 requires a party seeking a decedent’s medical records to show that the records are material and necessary to the case.

Friedman v. Frank · filed 2007-05-07

Except as to these records, defendants have failed to demonstrate at this juncture that all of decedent’s medical records are material and necessary to the defense of this action.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of evidence material and necessary to damages, including records of a prior injury relevant to a claimed loss of enjoyment of life.

Weber v. Ryder TRS, Inc. · filed 2008-03-25(a)

... and CPLR 3101 (a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]). Here, information as to the nature and severity of the injured plaintiffs previous right shoulder injury and right shoulder surgery are material and necessary to the issue of damages, if any, recoverable for a claimed loss of enjoyment of life due to the current injuries sustained by him in the subject motor vehicle accident (see Diamond v Ross Orthopedic Group, P.C., 41 AD3d at 769; Vanalst v City of New York, 276 AD2d 789 [2000]).

CPLR 3101(a) does not require disclosure of documents about prior similar accidents in a slip-and-fall action alleging no inherent defect because those documents are not material or necessary.

Daniels v. Fairfield Presidential Management Corp. · filed 2007-08-07(a)

In addition, the documents were not material or necessary to the prosecution of the action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; 3120 [1]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of corporate income tax returns when special circumstances warrant it.

Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2008-07-30(a)

We further note that special circumstances exist which warrant the disclosure of plaintiffs corporate income tax returns (see CPLR 3101 [a]; ... Altidor v State-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 435 [2005]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of medical records material and necessary to the defense, but the requested records must relate to a condition the plaintiff placed in controversy.

Bozek v. Derkatz · filed 2008-10-03(a)

“The determinative factor is whether the records sought to be discovered are ‘material and necessary’ in defense of the action” (Wachtman v Trocaire Coll., 143 AD2d 527, 528 [1988], quoting Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 457 [1983]; see CPLR 3101 [a]), or whether the records “may contain information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence” (Zydel v Manges, 83 AD2d 987 [1981]). Here, as plaintiff correctly contends, defendants failed to establish that the records sought “related to any physical or mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy by” plaintiff in this' action against defendants (Mayer v Cusyck, 284 AD2d 937, 938 [2001]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of settlement terms that are material and necessary to a nonsettling party’s case, even when the agreement contains a confidentiality clause.

Mahoney v. Turner Construction Co. · filed 2009-01-15(a)

Thus, disclosure of the terms of a settlement agreement by a settling party to a nonsettling party may be appropriate, despite the presence of a confidentiality clause in the agreement, where the terms of the agreement are “material and necessary” to the nonsettling party’s case ... .

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a golf course’s income and expense information when it is relevant and material to valuation, subject to leave of court in a tax assessment review proceeding.

Ardsley Country Club v. Assessor of Greenburgh · filed 2009-05-18(a)

Consequently, while production of an income and expense statement was not compelled here prior to filing of a note of issue under section 202.59, an income and expense statement is undeniably relevant and material to the appraisal problem for the subject golf course, and therefore, discoverable. ... Further, they likely were well aware that, beyond the possibility of moving to dismiss for petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with section 202.59, the income and expense information sought was subject to compulsory disclosure under CPLR 408 and article 31.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement when its terms are material and necessary to a nonsettling party’s case.

Osowski v. AMEC Construction Management, Inc. · filed 2009-10-08(a)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101, it was proper for the trial court to compel disclosure of the “Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement” between the Osowskis and AMEC/NYTB/ AIG, the “Letter of Credit,” and the “Settlement and Release Agreement” between AMEC/NYTB and AIG because these agreements were “material and necessary” to the issues raised in the third-party action.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a fiduciary’s personal income tax returns when serious allegations of breaches of duty, supported by facts, meet the burden for obtaining them.

In re the Accounting of Zirinsky · filed 2009-10-16(a)

Such allegations, combined with some facts already revealed and uncontroverted, are more than sufficient to meet the objectants’ burden on the instant issue. When a fiduciary whose entire professional life and livelihood has been these estates has been charged with serious breaches of his duty, then the court believes his personal income tax returns are discoverable.

Section 3101(a) requires a party seeking postaccident medical records to show their relevance to the condition allegedly causing the accident.

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2010-03-04(a)

While defendant Batista waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to his physical condition by asserting the affirmative defense of unanticipated medical emergency (CPLR 3121 [a]; 4504 [a]; Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 333 [2004]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]), plaintiff failed to demonstrate the relevance of Batista’s postaccident medical records to the condition that allegedly caused the accident (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]).

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of an employee’s subsequent remedial training when it is sought to prove negligence and would be inadmissible at trial.

Alfieri v. Carmelite Nursing Home, Inc. · filed 2010-08-10(a)

There is no doubt this information is to be used to demonstrate defendant’s negligence in the matter, and is therefore inadmissible at trial, and subsequently undiscoverable.

Section 3101(a) permits an inspection that would yield evidence material and necessary to prosecuting an action.

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2011-02-01(a)

The plaintiffs demonstrated that an inspection by their attorney of the roof of the CVS store where the accident allegedly occurred would yield evidence that is “material and necessary” to the prosecution of this action (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) allows a court supervising discovery to order production of unredacted financial records.

NEUMAN, DAVID v. FRANK, STUART A. · filed 2011-03-25(a)

Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its broad discretion to supervise discovery by ordering defendant to produce unredacted financial records (see generally CPLR 3101 [a]; Cain v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 1344).

Section 3101(a)(1) permits discovery of medical records when a particular injury makes the records material and necessary to the defense.

Cristiano v. York Hunter Services, Inc. · filed 2012-10-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, upon renewal, that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was, in effect, for a protective order precluding discovery of medical records from Pine Street Family Care Center pertaining to the plaintiffs fractured rib injury should have been denied.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of subsequent repair records when they may show who maintained or controlled the accident site.

Del Vecchio v. Danielle Associates, LLC · filed 2012-04-17(a)

Here, the material sought by Danielle may be relevant in determining which entity maintained and controlled the area where the accident allegedly occurred. Thus, such material is properly subject to disclosure.

Section 3101(a) permits limited discovery of a prior injury that may explain a plaintiff’s current symptoms, but does not permit discovery of the plaintiff’s entire medical history when the injuries are sufficiently distinct.

Bennett v. Gordon · filed 2012-10-11(a)

The court properly allowed defendants ... limited discovery as to a prior injury Lawrence Bennett suffered which damaged his right shoulder when he attempted to deflect a concrete “form” from hitting his head as it fell from a height (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-408 [1968]; Matter of New York County DES Litig., 171 AD2d 119, 123 [1st Dept 1991]).

Section 3101 requires a party seeking preaccident medical records to show that the records are material and necessary to the defense.

O'Brien v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2012-11-20

Defendants failed to demonstrate that all plaintiff’s preaccident medical records were material and necessary in the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical history in dental records when a plaintiff puts a prior medical condition at issue and the records are material and necessary to the defense.

Colwin v. Katz · filed 2013-01-08(a)

Inasmuch as plaintiff has clearly voluntarily put her prior medical condition at issue (CPLR 4504 [a]; see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283-284 [1989]), such disclosure is material and necessary for the defense of this action so that defendants may ascertain her condition prior to being treated by Dr. Katz (CPLR 3101 [a]; see McGlone v PortAuth. of N.Y. & N.J., 90 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2011]; Rega v Avon Prods., Inc., 49 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2008]).

CPLR 3101(a) permits denial of a physical inspection in a private home when the requesting party fails to show that it is material and necessary.

Martinez v. Bauer · filed 2013-02-21(a)

The trial court providently exercised its broad discretion in determining that plaintiff had not shown that the requested physical inspection in a private home was “material and necessary” within the meaning of CPLR 3101 (a) (see Auerbach v Klein, 30 AD3d 451, 452 [2d Dept 2006]; Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [1st Dept 2003]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of tax records when they are relevant and indispensable to a claim and unavailable from another source.

Levine v. City Medical Associates, P.C. · filed 2013-07-31(a)

The tax records relating to the period after the plaintiff left the defendant’s employ are, however, relevant and indispensable to the defendant’s prosecution of its counterclaims. Moreover, inasmuch as they are not available from any other source, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the plaintiff to disclose them (see Kay v Kay, 223 AD2d 684, 684 [1996]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of prior medical records concerning injuries a plaintiff claims were worsened by an accident when those records are material and necessary to the defense.

Gutierrez v. Trillium USA · filed 2013-11-13(a)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide authorizations for the release of his medical records for the five-year period pre-dating the accident insofar as the defendants sought the release of medical records pertaining to prior treatment of the plaintiffs knees, neck, back, and left shoulder during that period of time. “There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Under CPLR 3101(a), subsequent repair records are generally not discoverable in a negligence action unless the defendant’s maintenance or control of the instrumentality is at issue.

Graham v. Kone, Inc. · filed 2015-07-15(a)

“[E]vidence of subsequent repairs is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case”

Section 3101(a) requires defendants seeking medical records to show that the records are relevant to an issue in controversy and material and necessary to the defense.

Shafir v. World of Chantilly, Inc. · filed 2017-07-26(a)

The defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that the medical records sought are relevant to the issue in controversy and are material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101 [a]; 3121 [a]; Sibley v Hayes 73 Corp., 126 AD2d 629, 631 [1987]; cf. Farkas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 97 AD3d 720, 722 [2012]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of lead paint violation records from other apartments in the same buildings when those records may bear on the landlord’s notice and duties.

Z.D. Ex Rel. Zaimah A. v. MP Management, LLC · filed 2017-05-23(a)

... plaintiffs’ demand for production of records for lead-based paint violations in the other apartments in the buildings was appropriate (see CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of post-accident repairs in a negligence action when maintenance or control is at issue.

Soto v. CBS Corp. · filed 2018-01-10(a)

"CPLR 3101(a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" ( Del Vecchio v Danielle Assoc., LLC, 94 AD3d 941, 942; see Giordano v New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 84 AD3d 729, 730-731). " Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control'" ( Del Vecchio v Danielle Assoc., LLC, 94 AD3d at 942, quoting Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307, 308; see DeRoche v Methodist Hosp. of Brooklyn, 249 AD2d 438, 439). Contrary to the defendants' contentions, an issue exists as to the identity of the entity responsible for the structural maintenance and control of the stairway. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly directed the defendants to produce discovery concerning the post-accident repairs.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of tax documents from the years of a disputed business relationship, but not later years when no business relationship existed.

McMahon v. Manners · filed 2018-02-07(a)

CPLR 3101(a) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." ... Here, Manners sustained his burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff should be required to disclose his tax documents relating to the period from 2006 through 2011, when the plaintiff had a business affiliation with Manners ( see Levine v City Med. Assoc., P.C., 108 AD3d at 747; Gitlin v Chirinkin, 71 AD3d 728, 729; Kerman v Martin Friedman, C.P.A., P.C., 21 AD3d 997, 999). ... However, the court should not have directed disclosure of tax documents after 2011, as no business relationship existed between the parties at that time ( see Levine v City Med . Assoc., P.C., 108 AD3d at 747; Gitlin v Chirinkin , 71 AD3d at 729; Kerman v Martin Friedman, C.P.A., P.C. , 21 AD3d at 999).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a settlement agreement when its terms are material and necessary to a nonsettling party's case.

Matter of Metro-North Train Acc. of Feb. 3, 2015 · filed 2019-12-18(a)

Here, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination directing the Metro-North [*2]defendants to produce the Smalls Settlement Agreement for in camera review ( see Mahoney v Turner Constr. Co. , 61 AD3d at 105) and, upon reviewing the Smalls Settlement Agreement in camera, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that its terms were material and necessary to the nonsettling parties' case and, therefore, discoverable.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of nonprivileged material from another action when it is relevant to the defense, but does not require production of files concerning unrelated properties.

Rosenblum v. Trinity Hudson Holdings, LLC · filed 2020-11-10(a)

Given that this action gives rise to similar economic issues, defendants are entitled to nonprivileged information contained in that action that is relevant to the defense of the instant action, as CPLR 3101(a) mandates full disclosure of matters "material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]). ... However, defendants are not entitled to the entirety of the nonprivileged litigation files. To the extent documents and information contained therein relate exclusively to other properties owned by plaintiffs, and not to the property that is the subject of the instant action, the information is not relevant and plaintiffs are not under an obligation to produce it.

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of a child's therapy records merely because a parent claims they are material and necessary to her defense.

Matter of Dre'Shaun W. (Andrea F.) · filed 2021-05-04(a)

We also find unavailing the mother's contention that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her motion for disclosure of the child's therapy records as "material and necessary" to her defense ( see CPLR 3101[a]; Family Ct Act § 1038[d]). She further failed to demonstrate that "the interests of justice significantly outweigh the [child's] need for confidentiality" (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1]).

Section 3101(a) generally requires a strong showing that tax return information is indispensable to a claim or defense and unavailable from other sources before the returns may be disclosed.

Nill v. Gaco W., LLC · filed 2022-03-30(a)

Due to the "confidential and private nature" of tax returns ( Roth v American Colonial Ins. Co. , 159 AD2d 370, 370), "[t]ax returns generally are not discoverable in the absence of a strong showing that the information is indispensable to a claim or defense and cannot be obtained from other sources" ( Katz v Castlepoint Ins. Co. , 121 AD3d 948, 949; see Levine v City Med. Assoc., P.C. , 108 AD3d at 747). Here, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing, since the plaintiff did not establish that information in the tax returns was indispensable to the Labor Law claim and could not be obtained from other sources ( see Katz v Castlepoint Ins. Co. , 121 AD3d at 949; Gitlin v Chirinkin , 71 AD3d 728; Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC , 44 AD3d 599, 600; Muller v Sorensen , 138 AD2d 683, 684).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of nonmedical inmate records material to an action alleging an assault under correctional supervision.

Lane v. City of New York · filed 2022-11-15(a)

Supreme Court should have compelled defendants to comply with plaintiff's discovery demands to the extent they sought nonmedical records relating to Jones and those records were maintained by DOC. Such records, which include documents relating to Jones' violence classification level and his prior conduct at Manhattan Detention Complex or in other DOC facilities, are material to plaintiff's action, which is premised on Jones' alleged assault of her while under DOC supervision ( see CPLR 3101[a]).

Section 3101(a) requires a strong showing of necessity and a showing that the information is unavailable from other sources before personal income records are disclosed.

Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. KPMG LLP · filed 2023-03-21(a)

While CPLR 3101 (a) is interpreted liberally, New York courts recognize a privacy interest in personal income records. A party seeking disclosure must make a strong showing of necessity and demonstrate that the information is otherwise unavailable from other sources ( Gordon v Grossman , 183 AD2d 669, 670 [1st Dept 1992]). Here, plaintiffs have not made such showing.

Section 3101(a) permits inspection of original documents when substantiated questions arise about their authenticity.

Sara Tirschwell for Mayor, Inc. v. Kramer · filed 2024-01-04(a)

As such, production of original documents for inspection is warranted where, as here, plaintiffs have raised substantiated questions as to their authenticity.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material useful to a claim, including personnel records in a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision action.

S.E. v. Diocese of Brooklyn · filed 2025-07-23(a)

"'Parties are entitled to disclosure of all matter material and necessary to prosecution of the action'" ( Wadolowski v Cohen , 99 AD3d 793, 794 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Skolinsky , 70 AD3d 845, 845; see CPLR 3101[a]). ... Personnel records generally are discoverable where, as here, a plaintiff alleges a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision ( see Holloway v Orthodox Church in Am. , 232 AD3d at 774; Blanco v County of Suffolk , 51 AD3d 700, 701-702).

CPLR 3101(a) permits broad disclosure, but a confidential mediation statement need not be produced when the asserted basis for its relevance is speculative.

Prospect Capital Corp. v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP · filed 2025-06-17(a)

While discovery under CPLR 3101(a) is broad, the court improvidently determined that defendants established a basis for compelling Prospect to produce the confidential mediation statement ( see Matter of New York County Data Entry Worker Prod. Liability Litig., 222 AD2d 381, 382 [1st Dept 1995] ["settlement material that defendants . . . seek, in derogation of the confidentiality agreement that attended it, is not material and necessary to their defense of the action"]; compare Am Re-Ins. Co. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co. , 19 AD3d 103, 104 [1st Dept 2005]).

Section 3101(a) permits broad disclosure of records bearing on a plaintiff’s claimed physical and mental injuries.

Zakkiyya C. v. Verma · filed 2025-12-23(a)

With respect to the contentions as they relate to the authorizations concerning plaintiff's records, we note that CPLR 3101 (a) requires "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action," which is "to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity" ( Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co. , 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). ... Inasmuch as plaintiff alleges that she sustained extensive physical and mental injuries and limitations as a result of defendants' tortious conduct, we conclude that Supreme Court did not "abuse[ ] its discretion in ordering plaintiff to execute the broad authorizations sought by defendant" ( Almalahi v NFT Metro Sys. , Inc. , 175 AD3d 1043, 1045 [4th Dept 2019]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of a medical record’s audit trail when it may show a physician’s involvement in a patient’s care, even if the record’s authenticity is not disputed.

Gilbert v. Highland Hospital · filed 2016-03-24(a)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a), “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” ... Here, the plaintiffs request is relevant to the allegations made in the complaint; specifically, the allegation that the decedent was not seen or evaluated by a medical doctor prior to her discharge. ... As the plaintiff has made a proper request for the audit trail, the court hereby concludes that the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the audit trail should be granted.

Section 3101 does not permit wholesale discovery of a personal injury plaintiff’s medical records when the request is overly broad and unlikely to lead to relevant evidence.

Josphe v. Dermatology Associates of Rochester, P.C. · filed 2016-04-21

However, the court is cognizant that the alleged injuries, regardless of their significance, do not warrant a carte blanche, wholesale entitlement to all of plaintiffs medical records from the beginning of time. Defendants’ request for plaintiff’s primary care records, including those almost a quarter of a century old, is overly broad, burdensome and unlikely to lead to relevant evidence.

Section 3101(a) does not make a plaintiff's entire mental and physical health discoverable merely because she alleges general anxiety and mental anguish from physical injuries.

James v. 1620 Westchester Ave. LLC · filed 2017-02-21(a)

As the dissent notes, as a rule, "all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" should be fully disclosed (CPLR 3101[a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co. , 21 NY2d 403 [1968]). However, plaintiff's alleged general anxiety and mental anguish from back and leg injuries do not place her entire mental and physical health into contention ( see Serra v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , 116 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2014]; Gumbs v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P. , 114 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2014]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical records likely to contain information relevant to the defense, with in camera review to redact irrelevant information.

Snyder v. Asher · filed 2017-09-29(a)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that those records are “material and necessary” to the defense of the action inasmuch as they are likely to contain relevant information about plaintiff’s prior medical conditions (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Nichter v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2012]). ... We thus conclude that “the records should not be released to defendants until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted” (Nichter, 93 AD3d at 1338; see generally Barnes v Habuda, 118 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2014]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of health insurance records material and necessary to defending broad physical injury claims, subject to in camera review of irrelevant information.

Milligan v. Bifulco · filed 2017-09-29(a)

... the records sought from plaintiff’s health insurance carriers are “ ‘material and necessary’ to the defense of this action (CPLR 3101 [a]), inasmuch as they may contain information ‘reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence’ ” (Goetchius v Spavento, 84 AD3d 1712, 1713 [2011]). We therefore modify the order by granting that part of the cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to provide authorizations for the disclosure of those records.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a patient's electronic medical record audit trail when it is reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.

Vargas v. Lee · filed 2019-03-20(a)

Here, the plaintiffs, with the new material submitted in support of their renewed motion, sustained their threshold burden of demonstrating that the portion of the audit trail at issue was "reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence" ( id. at 666). To the extent that the Supreme Court determined that a higher threshold burden applied to the plaintiffs' request, we disagree with that determination ( see id. ).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical records that may be material and necessary to a defense based on causation or comparative negligence.

Almalahi v. NFT Metro Sys., Inc. · filed 2019-08-22(a)

In light of those undisputed facts, we agree with defendant that the medical records covering plaintiff's disputed health conditions—which involve her ability to stand, steady herself, and ambulate—may contain relevant information that is material and necessary to the defense of the action with respect to the element of causation or to defendant's related affirmative defense of comparative negligence ( see CPLR 3101 [a]; see also Geraci v National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. , 255 AD2d 945, 946 [4th Dept 1998]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of mental health treatment records when a plaintiff seeks emotional distress damages and puts his mental condition in issue.

Rosen v. MHM Realty LLC · filed 2018-11-08(a)

Plaintiff put his mental condition in issue by seeking to recover damages for emotional distress as a result of the actions alleged in the complaint (CPLR 3101[a]; Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 60 NY2d 452, 456-57 [1983]; Budano v Gurdon , 97 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2012]).

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of records for prior injuries that a plaintiff has not placed in controversy merely because she claims lost earnings and loss of enjoyment of life.

Brito v. Gomez · filed 2018-11-27(a)

CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the ... defense of an action" by a party to the action ( see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ.Co ., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). ... Contrary to defendants' argument, neither plaintiff's bill of particulars nor her deposition testimony places her prior knee injuries in controversy.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of pharmacy records material and necessary to prosecuting an action, while allowing an overly broad request to be limited.

Carr-Hoagland v. Patterson · filed 2019-03-15(a)

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that decedent's pharmacy records are not protected by the physician-patient privilege ( see CPLR 4504 [a]; Neferis v DeStefano , 265 AD2d 464, 466 [2d Dept 1999]) and are "material and necessary" to the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co. , 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). Nevertheless, we conclude that plaintiffs' request for records "before and after" the collision was overly broad, and we therefore limit disclosure of the pharmacy records to the six-month period immediately preceding the collision.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of prior medical treatment when a plaintiff places that condition at issue and the discovery is material and necessary to the defense.

Brito v. Gomez · filed 2019-09-10(a)

Under the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff therefore waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees and the discovery sought by authorizations pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff’s knees is “material and necessary” to defendants’ defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits a court to deny an overbroad request for confidential medical records beyond the scope of the proceeding.

Matter of Gabrielle N. (Linda N.) · filed 2022-02-24(a)

Family Court denied the motion as overbroad and beyond the scope of the proceeding. We find that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's request for the records under the circumstances presented ( see CPLR 3101 [a]; 3120 [2]; cf. Matter of Richard SS. , 29 AD3d 1118, 1123-1124 [2006]; Matter of Fernald v Vinci , 5 AD3d 596, 596 [2004]; compare Matter of Grover S. [Jonathan H.G.] , 176 AD3d 828, 829-830 [2019]; Matter of Murphy v Lewis , 106 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2013]; see generally Family Ct Act § 1038 [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits a discovery demand for medical record authorizations when the records bear on the cause of claimed injuries.

Winslow v. New York-Presbyt./Weill-Cornell Med. Ctr. · filed 2022-03-15(a)

Plaintiff's argument that a discovery demand for medical record authorizations is not legally authorized is incorrect ( see CPLR 3101[a]; 3121; Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C3121:7 ["examination is not necessary to the demand"]; Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.17[b][2]; see also Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 60 NY2d 452, 456-457 [1983]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of records about a prior medical condition when the plaintiff places that condition in controversy and the records are material to damages.

Frawley v. City of New York · filed 2023-11-29(a)

CPLR 3101(a) requires "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... Here, the decedent placed his bilateral wrist injuries in controversy by asserting a claim for loss of enjoyment of life and alleging "activation of underlying degenerative joint disease" in the bill of particulars.

Section 3101 does not require unrestricted medical authorizations when the requesting party lacks a reasonable basis for records beyond the conditions in controversy.

Parker v. City of New York · filed 2024-06-04(a)

Finally, NYCHA's demand for an unrestricted collateral source authorization lacks support, as Plaintiffs have not placed her entire medical condition in controversy (see Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC, 211 A.D.3d 638, 638 [1st Dept 2022]). Such a request requires a showing of particularized need, which NYCHA fails to provide.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of information about a party's physical or mental capacity when the pleadings put that capacity at issue and the information is relevant to a defense.

Lanaras v. Premium Ocean, LLC · filed 2025-04-04(a)

Disclosure of information related to Lanaras' physical and mental capacity or lack thereof is material and relevant to Paparizou's defense of this action (CPLR 3101[a]).

Section 3101(a) did not require disclosure of the child's medical records in this false arrest case.

Miller v. State of New York · filed 2025-11-26(a)

Claimant's additional arguments that the Court of Claims erred in failing to direct disclosure of the child's medical records ( see generally CPLR 3101 [a]; Cooke v Greenhouse Hudson, LLC , 230 AD3d 841, 845 [3d Dept 2024]) and improperly dismissed his state constitutional claims ( see Martinez v City of Schenectady , 97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]; Oppenheimer v State of New York , 152 AD3d 1006, 1008-1009 [3d Dept 2017]) have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of electronic medical record audit trails when a plaintiff raises legitimate questions about whether the defendant withheld or altered portions of the records.

Harms v. Lewis · filed 2026-04-24(a)

Further, audit trails, such as the ones sought by plaintiff here, are subject to discovery where a plaintiff establishes legitimate questions regarding whether portions of the medical records provided by a defendant have been withheld or altered (see Wright v Stephens, 239 AD3d 1271, 1274-1275 [4th Dept 2025]; Vargas v Lee, 170 AD3d 1073, 1077 [2d Dept 2019]).

Section 3101 permits defendants to examine a plaintiff who has placed his physical condition in issue.

Cruz v. Skeritt · filed 2016-06-21

Since plaintiff placed his physical condition in issue, defendants have the right to examine him (see Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-457 [1983]; CPLR 3101, 3121).

Section 3101(a) allows discovery of electronic data bearing on a viable fraud claim.

Etzion v. Etzion · filed 2009-05-05(a)

Given the viability of, inter alia, the plaintiffs cause of action ... sounding in fraud, discovery should be allowed with respect to any computer-stored data (either held in escrow or in the defendants’ business or personal computers) bearing on the issue of whether the defendant misrepresented to the plaintiff, in the stipulation of settlement, that, at the time they entered into the memorandum agreement, the defendant was not engaged in any active deals or pending negotiations for the sale of the warehouse property (see CPLR 3101 [a]).

Section 3101(a) does not permit unrestricted access to an opposing party’s computer hard drive when the demand covers all business and personal data without a time limit.

Schreiber v. Schreiber · filed 2010-06-25(a)

The court finds that plaintiff in this case is not entitled to an unrestricted turnover of the computer hard disk drive at issue, either in the form of the original hard disk drive or in the form of its clone. Unlike a typical discovery demand which targets particular information, plaintiffs request here is overbroad as it seeks general — as well as unlimited in time — access to the entirety of defendant’s business and personal data stored on his office computer.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of private social media material when public posts indicate that it may be relevant to a plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

Romano v. Steelcase Inc. · filed 2010-09-21

The information sought by defendant regarding plaintiffs Facebook and MySpace accounts is both material and necessary to the defense of this action and/or could lead to admissible evidence.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material and necessary information, but an overbroad discovery demand should be vacated in its entirety.

KREGG, CHARLOTTE v. MALDONADO, EILEEN · filed 2012-09-28(a)

Although CPLR 3101 (a) provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” it is well settled that a party need not respond to discovery demands that are overbroad (see Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 35 AD3d 1263, 1263). Where discovery demands are overbroad, “ ‘the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it’ ” (Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent Assoc., 78 AD3d 752, 753).

Section 3101(a) does not require a party to answer an overbroad demand for social media records; a request must be tailored to information relevant to the claimed injuries.

Kregg v. Maldonado · filed 2012-09-28(a)

Although CPLR 3101 (a) provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” it is well settled that a party need not respond to discovery demands that are overbroad (see Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 35 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2006]). ... Thus, we deny that part of the Suzuki defendants’ motion to compel the disclosure of the entire contents of the injured party’s social media accounts, without prejudice to the service of a more narrowly-tailored disclosure request.

CPLR 3101(a) permits discovery of a private social media account when the requesting party has a good faith basis to believe it contains information relevant to the case.

Fawcett v. Altieri · filed 2013-01-11(a)

While social media websites may be a relatively new phenomenon, the liberal interpretation of the words “material and necessary” in CPLR 3101 (a) remains applicable. ... The party requesting the discovery of an adversary’s restricted social media accounts should first demonstrate a good faith basis to make the request.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary information, including relevant social media evidence, subject to limits on private communications.

Melissa "G" v. North Babylon Union Free School District · filed 2015-03-18(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) broadly mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (Ren Zheng Zheng v Bermeo, 114 AD3d 743, 744 [2d Dept 2014]). The statutory scope of disclosure applies to the discovery of information on social media websites, such as Face-book, provided the defendants make a showing that the information sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the plaintiff’s claim (see Richards v Hertz Corp., 100 AD3d 728 [2d Dept 2012], citing Patterson v Turner Constr. Co., 88 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2011]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of private social media materials when a tailored request is reasonably calculated to yield relevant information; privacy settings do not determine the scope of disclosure.

Forman v. Henkin · filed 2018-02-13(a)

New York discovery rules do not condition a party's receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. ... Thus, we reject the notion that the account holder's so-called "privacy" settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials.

Section 3101 permits discovery of postaccident social media records relevant to claimed limitations, but a demand for access to all postaccident accounts is overbroad.

Doyle v. Temco Serv. Indus., Inc. · filed 2019-05-21

Defendants are entitled to discovery to rebut plaintiff's claims ( see CPLR 3101; Forman v Henkin , 30 NY3d 656, 663-664 [2018]), however, defendants' discovery demand seeking access to all of plaintiff's postaccident social media accounts is overbroad ( Forman , 30 NY3d at 664-665).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of social media material reasonably likely to provide relevant evidence about claimed injuries and loss of enjoyment of life.

Gentile v. Ogden · filed 2022-08-31(a)

CPLR 3101(a) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." ... Here, the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff's social media accounts were reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence regarding her alleged injuries and loss of enjoyment of life ( see id. at 666-667; Abedin v Osorio , 188 AD3d 764, 766-767).

CPLR 3101(a) permits disclosure of cell phone location data when it may reveal evidence relevant to a claim or lead to such evidence.

Pulgarin v. Richmond · filed 2023-09-13(a)

Here, the defendants' motion papers sufficiently demonstrated that the production of the plaintiff's cell phone for the inspection and collection of geographical data recorded on the device on the date of the accident may result in the disclosure of relevant evidence and was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the plaintiff's claim ( see Mendives v Curcio , 174 AD3d 796, 798).

Section 3101(a) requires a social media disclosure demand to identify the types of relevant material sought without sweeping in nonrelevant material.

Dato v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2024-10-30(a)

CPLR 3101 states that there "shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... However, Verde's demand is overbroad because it failed to identify "the types of materials that must be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of nonrelevant materials" (id. at 666).

Section 3101(a) permits a discovery request for a party's Facebook support-group posts when the request is limited to that party's own posts.

Nieman v. Vira · filed 2025-12-10(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a protective order precluding the production of certain content on on a certain Facebook page. The respondents' discovery request was appropriately tailored, as it only sought the contents of the plaintiff's posts to a bereavement support group on a certain Facebook page, and not the posts of others ( see Forman v Henkin , 30 NY3d at 665).

Section 3101 permits discovery of metadata from relevant searches of a party’s servers and requires a party claiming it has no responsive electronic documents to explain its search and collection procedures by affidavit.

Austin Schuster Group, LLC v. Extell Dev. Co. · filed 2025-06-16

CPLR § 3101 requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof by. . . a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a party.” ... To the extent that ASG claims that it does not possess any responsive documents in electronic format, it must produce an affidavit explaining its search and collection procedures and otherwise explaining how these documents came into its possession. Extell is also entitled to review the metadata produced from running the appropriate searches on ASG’s servers.

Section 3101 permits a party who has reached age 75 to perpetuate her testimony based on her age alone, without a medical affidavit showing she may not survive until trial.

Boyo v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 1972-12-14(a)(3)

In light of this amendment, it is the court’s view that CPLR 3101 should be construed so as to give effect to the age of a movant seeking relief thereunder. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted solely by reason of her advanced age.

Section 3101(a)(3) permits testimony to be perpetuated before trial when a witness’s age, health, and likely delay make attendance at trial uncertain.

Young v. Teed · filed 1974-10-08(a)(3)

I, firstly, consider plaintiff’s application under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [3]) for an order to perpetuate her testimony, understandably concerned with plaintiff’s advanced age and physical disabilities, her counsel is apprehensive she may not be available or capable of testifying when the action is finally - brought to trial. ... I am persuaded by reason of the plaintiff’s age, the state of her physical condition and, coupled with the likelihood of protracted and extensive pretrial and procedural motions,— surely, a reasonable prediction in view of the myriad motions before me at this initial stage of the litigation — that she may well be unavailable to attend when the actions are finally ready for trial.

Section 3101(a)(3) permits a deposition to secure testimony from a witness whose illness or infirmity gives reasonable grounds to believe the witness cannot attend trial.

COLECHIO-THOMAS, PENELOPE R. v. COUNTY OF CATTARAUGUS · filed 2011-06-10(a)(3)

Defendant further demonstrated that the witness is “so sick or infirm as to afford reasonable grounds of belief that he . . . ... will not be able to attend the trial” and thus that a deposition is necessary to secure his testimony (CPLR 3101 [a] [3]).

CPLR 3101 does not require a subpoenaing party to show that the requested disclosure is unavailable from another source.

Richmond Global Compass Fund Mgt. GP, LLC v. Nascimento · filed 2026-03-26

That respondents' privilege logs may be duplicative of defendants' privilege log is irrelevant, as CPLR 3101 "imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source" ( Matter of Kapon , 23 NY3d at 38).

Section 3101(a)(4)'s notice requirement is not satisfied by attaching a complaint that does not identify the nonparty or explain why disclosure is sought.

Haimovici v. Castle Vil. Owners Corp. · filed 2026-01-13(a)(4)

In any event, the motion court properly found that the notice requirement of CPLR 3101(a)(4) was not satisfied here by simply annexing the amended complaint, which does not mention Ditton (apart from the caption) or Citibank ( see Matter of Kapon v Koch , 23 NY3d 32, 39 n 3 [2014] ["This is not to say that a pleading will always provide sufficient notice [under CPLR 3101(a)(4)]"]; Olson v Glencore, Ltd ., 70 Misc 3d 1219(A), *6 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] [dismissing petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum because complaint and motions failed to provide nonparty with adequate notice concerning the circumstances or reasons that disclosure is sought]).

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require a party seeking nonparty disclosure to show that the requested information is unavailable from another source.

Buff v. Janover LLC · filed 2026-01-06(a)(4)

Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's argument that Janover can seek documents from online sources and that she had previously disclosed her tax file, CPLR 3101(a)(4), authorizing nonparty disclosure, "imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source" ( id. ).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a nonparty subpoena to state the circumstances or reasons for disclosure; a notice identifying potentially material statements made in the witness’s presence satisfies that requirement.

G.A. v. Archdiocese of N.Y. · filed 2026-03-02(a)(4)

The Court finds the subpoena herein which advises that defendant seeks to ask Dr. Feit about statements made in front of her by the Plaintiff and others in this action meets the minimal requirements.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking nonparty disclosure to explain why it is sought; if the party moving to quash shows the request is utterly irrelevant, the requesting party must establish that the disclosure is material and necessary.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Charlebois · filed 2025-12-31(a)(4)

Here, the defendant met her minimal obligation to show that she provided adequate notice of the circumstances or reason requiring the disclosure ( see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Nunez v Peikarian , 208 AD3d at 671). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing that the requested disclosure was utterly irrelevant ( see Matter of County of Suffolk v Kennedy , 211 AD3d 937, 939; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Carter , 204 AD3d at 729-730; see also Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d 125, 132). In opposition, the defendant failed to establish that the requested disclosure was material and necessary to her defense of the action ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Carter , 204 AD3d at 730).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits nonparty discovery of material and necessary evidence; a subpoena may be quashed when the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant and the subpoenaing party fails to show it is material and necessary.

Doe v. Clark · filed 2026-03-16(a)(4)

In opposition, the defendants failed to establish that the requested disclosure is material and necessary to their defense of the action.

CPLR 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking discovery from a nonparty owner to subpoena that person rather than compel the defendant to provide the owner's authorizations.

Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co. v. Via Trivio Corp. · filed 2026-06-03(a)(4)

Here, the plaintiff could not compel Crown Deli to provide authorizations from its nonparty owner to obtain his BAC test results and records of his purchases ( cf. D'Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp. , 137 AD3d 1195, 1197). Rather, the plaintiff should have served Crown Deli's owner with a subpoena ( see CPLR 3101[a][4]).

Section 3101’s specific disclosure exclusions do not cover objections that a demand lacks particularity or relevance.

Indilicato v. Pacific Pool Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-06-02

Defendant’s objection is not encompassed by any of the specific exclusionary provisions of CPLR 3101, but defendant maintains that an objection based upon lack of particularity and relevancy is so fundamental that it, too, is not waived by failure to move for a protective order.

Section 3101(g) does not exempt a fire marshal’s investigatory file from disclosure when the city fails to demonstrate that an exemption applies.

Sciascia v. City of New York · filed 1983-08-22(g)

The City of New York has failed to demonstrate that the materials sought for discovery are exempt under either CPLR 3101 (subd [gl) or section 87 (subd 2, par [gl) of the Public Officers Law (see Matter of Polansky u Regan, 81 AD2d 102; Pataki u Kiseda, 80 AD2d 100).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a nonparty’s pretrial deposition when the need to prepare fully for trial constitutes a special circumstance.

In re the Estate of Laflin · filed 1984-11-13(a)(4)

The showing by objectant’s counsel that he needed the witness’ pretrial deposition in order to prepare fully for trial suffices as a “special circumstance” pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) (see Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230; Gersten v New York Hosp., 81 AD2d 632; Kelly v Shafiroff, 80 AD2d 601).

Under the pre-1984 version of CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party showed adequate special circumstances to depose a nonparty by showing that the witness had material information needed to prepare for trial.

Slabakis v. Drizin · filed 1985-02-19(a)(4)

The moving papers alleged that Tannenbaum had knowledge as to the factual issues concerning the ability and willingness of his client to purchase the property at the stated price, information which was necessary to defendants’ preparation for trial. This was a sufficient showing of “special circumstances” under the then statute. The provisions of CPLR 3101 (a) (4), applicable at the time, authorized disclosure of material and necessary evidence from nonparty witnesses “where the court on motion determines that there are adequate special circumstances.”

Section 3101 permits nonparty depositions seeking relevant evidence that has not been ruled inadmissible.

William Iselin & Co. v. Continental Insurance · filed 1984-05-01

For similar reasons, plaintiff is entitled to depose the nonparty witnesses. Defendant has used its evidence for its own support on a prior motion and it has not been rendered inadmissible by any finding that the bond is unambiguous in its terms.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits the deposition of a nonparty physician whose testimony can clarify material facts about a tenant’s ability to return home.

65 Central Park West, Inc. v. Greenwald · filed 1985-03-04(a)(4)

It is appropriate then for the landlord to have the opportunity to depose, as a nonparty witness, Dr. Schwimmer. (CPLR 3101 [a] [4].) Such a deposition will clarify some of the issues left murky by his letter, including the specific possibility of Mrs. Greenwald’s return based upon her current medical condition.

Section 3101(a)(4) does not permit a party to depose a nonparty investigator to recreate an expunged child abuse report.

K. v. K. · filed 1984-12-04(a)(4)

Nor may the expunged report be resurrected by deposing the investigator as a nonparty witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4).

Section 3101(a)(4)’s special-circumstances requirement is normally met for examining a treating physician in a will contest involving testamentary capacity.

In re the Estate of Postley · filed 1984-08-22(a)(4)

But for the interposition by the proponent of the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504), sufficient special circumstances (CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [4]) are normally present in a will contest involving testamentary capacity to warrant the examination of a treating physician (Matter of Corey, 275 App Div 53; Matter of Danilow, 118 NYS2d 522).

Section 3101(a)(4) does not require a showing of special circumstances to obtain disclosure from a nonparty witness who is outside New York.

Wiseman v. American Motors Sales Corp. · filed 1984-08-27(a)(4)

Since the proposed deponent was without the State, defendant was not required to demonstrate “adequate special circumstances”, under CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]), before disclosure by the nonparty witness would be authorized.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a nonparty deposition without a court order upon notice stating why the disclosure is sought or required.

Trapp v. Trapp · filed 1985-06-06(a)(4)

As to the deposition of Dean Witter Reynolds, we note that in 1984, the Legislature amended CPLR 3101 (L 1984, ch 294, § 2) to eliminate the requirement of an order for the purpose of deposing a witness. CPLR 3101 (a) (4) now permits the taking of such deposition “upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required”. Since the change in the law is procedural, we are required to apply it.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits a party to depose a nonparty witness when the party shows the deposition is needed to prepare fully for trial.

Reilly v. County of Nassau · filed 1985-07-15(a)(4)

Plaintiffs have shown the need to depose the nonparty witness in order to fully prepare for trial. Hence, they are entitled to take his deposition pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) (see, Slabakis v Drizin, 107 AD2d 45, 47; Kelly v Shafiroff, 80 AD2d 601, 602).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits examination of a nonparty upon notice stating why disclosure is sought; a separate court order is not required.

New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Kelly · filed 1985-12-10(a)(4)

In 1984, however, the Legislature amended CPLR 3101 (a) (4), to delete the requirement for a court order and to permit discovery "upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” (L 1984, ch 294, § 2, eff Sept. 1, 1984.)

CPLR 3101(a)(4) permits examination of nonparty witnesses when their information is necessary to prepare for trial.

Laboratory of Chromatography, Inc. v. Eastern Laboratories, Ltd. · filed 1985-07-01(a)(4)

Plaintiff has satisfied the requirement that special circumstances be shown, namely, that the information from these entities is necessary in order to prepare for the trial (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:22, pp 26-27; 3A Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3101.32; Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 240; Gersten v New York Hosp., 81 AD2d 632; Mogollon v South African Mar. Corp., 80 AD2d 636; Matter of Catskill Center v Voss, 70 AD2d 753; Villano v Conde Nast Pubs., 46 AD2d 118, 120; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 41 AD2d 586).

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a notice seeking nonparty disclosure to state the circumstances or reasons for it; a subpoena lacking that notice is defective.

Pavia v. 810 Broadway Associates · filed 1986-01-16(a)(4)

The 1984 amendment to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) permits one to obtain disclosure by nonparties “upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.” ... Failure to comply with the clear language of the statute makes the subpoena fatally defective.

Disclosure from a nonparty requires a showing that the requested information is exclusively in the nonparty’s possession.

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg · filed 1986-04-04(a)(4)

Defendant has also failed to show that the information sought is exclusively in the firm’s possession, therefore warranting disclosure from a nonparty (Prema v Maleszka, 95 AD2d 850; see also, CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

Section 3101(a)(4) permits examination of nonparty witnesses when the requesting party adequately shows that their testimony is necessary to prepare for trial.

Mulvihill v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance · filed 1985-07-12(a)(4)

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to examine certain non-party witnesses pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (4) on issues raised by defendant’s answer to plaintiffs suit as beneficiary to recover the proceeds under a group insurance policy covering his brother’s life. Defendant makes an adequate showing that it is necessary in preparing for trial that it examine decedent’s four office employees and decedent’s mother concerning decedent’s state of mental and physical health prior to his answering questions pertaining thereto on the policy application.

Section 3101(a)(4) requires a party seeking a nonparty’s tax returns to adequately explain the need for them.

Gadlin v. Gadlin · filed 1985-08-12(a)(4)

However, assuming, arguendo, that the submission of such an affidavit constituted an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction, we find that defendant’s explanation of her need for copies of the income tax returns of the plaintiff’s new wife falls far short of the requirements of CPLR 3101 (a) (4). The provision of the order requiring the service of copies of certain of the nonparty Judith Gadlin’s Federal income tax returns should, therefore, be vacated.