Barry S. Gedan, Larchmont, for appellant.

Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach LLP, White Plains (Alejandra R. Gil of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Frishman, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Zachary T. Sharfman, M.D., Montefiore Medical Center, and Montefiore Health System, Inc.'s (collectively, Montefiore defendants) motion to compel plaintiff to provide unrestricted authorizations for decedent's medical records and to authorize release of mental health, drug/alcohol treatment and HIV-related records, if any, from Kings Harbor Multicare Center, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for sanctions, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to limit the authorizations for medical records to those related to decedent's left hip injury and left leg incision from October 1, 2018, to March 27, 2020, and to deny Montefiore defendants' motion to the extent it sought to compel an authorization for the release of mental health, drug/alcohol treatment and HIV-related records from Kings Harbor, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Decedent suffered a hip fracture in October 2018, and, as a result of that injury, underwent hip surgery at defendant Montefiore Medical Center that same month. Plaintiff alleges that during the hip surgery, defendants unnecessarily created a long incision on decedent's lower left leg.

The Montefiore defendants did not demonstrate entitlement to unlimited disclosure of decedent's medical and insurance records, but only to records relating to the left hip surgery and leg incision, which are the parts of the body that plaintiff claims were injured (see Brito v Gomez, 33 NY3d 1126, 1127 [2019]; Abrew v Triple C Props., LLC, 178 AD3d 526, 526-527 [1st Dept 2019]). The Montefiore defendants failed to offer any expert evidence to establish a particularized need for inquiry into matters not directly at issue, and thus their discovery request for plaintiff to produce medical records pertaining to decedent's medical history before her hip injury should have been denied (see Lindsay v CG Maiden Member, LLC, 211 AD3d 638, 638 [1st Dept 2022]).

The Montefiore defendants also failed to meet their burden of showing that "the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality" so as to permit discovery of alcohol abuse, substance abuse, or mental health records from the Kings Harbor nursing home (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 33.13 [c] [1]; 22.05 [b]; see James v 1620 Westchester Ave. LLC, 147 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2017]). Similarly, Montefiore defendants did not meet their burden of showing a "compelling need" for medical records concerning HIV (Public Health Law § 2785 [2] [a]; James, 147 AD3d at 576).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's cross-motion for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see PF2 Sec. Evaluations, Inc. v Fillebeen, 168 AD3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2019]). The Montefiore defendants made a good-faith argument that they were entitled to unrestricted authorizations (see [*2]Kremen v Benedict P. Morelli & Assoc., P.C., 80 AD3d 521, 523 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, they asserted a reasonable basis for delaying depositions and the court granted them leave to file their motion (see PF2 Sec. Evaluations, Inc., 168 AD3d at 618). Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.