asserts, were hand-delivered on October 25, 2011. Ms. Knapp's assertion that "the file contains
no treatment records in connection with Dr. Grant" (see Reply Affirmation in Further
Support of Defendants' Motion In Limine to Exclude Testiomony [sic] of Dr. Irene Grant
¶ 12) is not sufficient evidence that the records were not received.
Perhaps as importantly, Defendants offer no explanation for not having made any attempt to
obtain Dr. Grant's treatment records during the approximately 10 months that have passed since
they, admittedly, knew of Dr. Grant's treatment of Plaintiff from her testimony at the evidentiary
hearing, and the service of this motion. Nor is there any affirmation of good faith effort to resolve
the issue, which is required to accompany any motion related to disclosure. (See Uniform
Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court §202.7; 22 NYCRR §202.7;
see Natoli v Milazzo, 65 AD3d
1309, 1310-11 [2d Dept 2009].)
There is no evidence that, before making this motion, Defendants' counsel made a single
attempt to obtain a copy of Dr. Grant's treatment records, even though at the time the motion was
made Plaintiff was not yet in violation of Uniform Rule §202.17 (g), since more than 30
days [*10]remained before trial. Under these circumstances, the
Court cannot ignore Plaintiff's contention that "[t]his is a frivolous motion and costs should be
assessed pursuant to 22 NYCRR section 130.1-1 (a)" (see Affirmation in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Preclude Dr. Grant ¶ 11.) At the final pre-trial conference, now
scheduled for October 29, the parties shall be prepared to address the issue, including, if either be
so advised, the presentation of testimony or other evidence.
Preclusion of "Notices of Violation"